Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HUMBER BRIDGE BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Stock Exchanges (Women Members)

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will seek powers to end the exclusion of women from membership of stock exchanges.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): No. My right hon. Friend is not persuaded that the introduction of legislation for this purpose is necessary. Women are admitted to membership of provincial stock exchanges.

Miss Fookes: Would my hon. Friend convey to the Secretary of State my extreme displeasure at what I regard as a pussy-footing answer?

Mr. Russell Kerr: Pile it on.

Miss Fookes: I will do my own piling on. If stock exchanges will not admit women to membership, does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a time limit on the time we wait for them to co-operate voluntarily—say, 18 months?

Mr. Smith: No; I would not agree to a time limit. I am sure that the example set by the provincial exchanges,

together with the knowledge of how most people feel on this issue, is likely to get women accepted more readily and easily than is Government action.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not odd that the Secretary of State did not answer this Question in view of the passionate speeches which he made during the Committee stage of my Equal Pay Bill, on which he supported Amendments to remove discrimination in the employment of women in every sphere of activity, from ministries of religion to the stock exchanges? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of those speeches, we have been expecting him to introduce a Bill ruling out all forms of discrimination?

Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend still adheres to the views he expressed then. Indeed, he wonders why the right hon. Lady did not introduce legislation on the subject.

Mr. Tilney: Is my hon. Friend aware that women are not only permitted to be members of provincial stock exchanges but are members of the Northern Stock Exchange?

Mr. Smith: Yes. The example of that stock exchange is very good, and I am sure that it will be noted by the growing minority who support the admission of women to the London Stock Exchange. My personal view is that persuasion rather than compulsion is the best remedy.

Rotherham, Dinnington and Maltby

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of persons currently unemployed in the Rotherham, Dinnington and Maltby employment exchange areas; and what is the percentage increase these figures represent as compared with the position one year ago.

Mr. Dudley Smith: At June, 1971, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the area covered by the Rotherham, Dinnington and Maltby Employment Exchanges was 3,544. This was a rate of 5·2 per cent. as compared with 41 per cent. in June, 1970.

Mr. Hardy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while the present situation is disgraceful enough, the trends show that


we are likely to face a very severe increase in a very short time? Is he further aware that the only major hope for improvement in my area rests in the already long-delayed Government decision? The delay in that decision is already such as to generate further gloom and despondency in my constituency.

Mr. Smith: We know that there is a particular problem in the hon. Gentleman's area; and the figures are certainly too high. But, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said as recently as Monday in the debate on unemployment, the Government are absolutely determined to reverse the upward trend in unemployment.

Mrs. Castle: When?

Mr. Smith: I believe that we shall eventually do that.

Wages Policy

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment in view of the rise in the wage index announced for May, what action he proposes to take in regard to wages policy.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): The annual rates of increase in wage rates and earnings show a significant reduction from the beginning of the year. We shall continue our policy to secure a progressive reduction in wage inflation.

Mr. Moyle: If the figures for May show a sharper upward trend, does the Minister not consider that this is an indication that his policy of being beastly to the public sector has totally failed to control either wages or prices, and is not this the collapse of the Government's policy? What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Carr: No. Certainly Government policy has not collapsed. The figure for this May is about comparable with that of last May. It is unfortunately slightly higher than in April, but if we look at the figures month by month over a period we see that the rate of increase having reached a peak about the end of last year and the beginning of this year, the trend is now undoubtedly downwards.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that figures given in reply to a Question by me recently show that 41 per

cent. of the male population in Scotland over the age of 21 are receiving less than £24 a week gross in wages? If people in this sort of category asked for an increase of 15 per cent. which would be justified, what would be his reaction? Would he treat them in the way he treated the doctors?

Mr. Carr: The distribution of wages as between areas and as between one industry and another arises not only or even mainly from Government policy but very largely from the policy and strategy of the trade unions, and the extent to which they press for smaller or larger claims for lower-paid workers, compared with higher-paid workers. So far, unfortunately, the trade unions having got higher increases for lower-paid workers, have proceeded to ask for at least equivalent increases for higher-paid workers.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would my hon. Friend seek to arrive at some voluntary agreement with the trade unions—as from the N.E.D.C. meeting, perhaps, on 9th July—and see whether agreement can be reached on some form of voluntary policy which would be in their interests as well as the country's?

Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friend and I both made clear in the debate on Monday that we certainly did not rule out such a development and we hope to see it come.

Mr. Rose: In view of the Minister's comments on the trade unions, what is his comment on the £10,000 increase in the directors' fees by Reed International, and also on the comments in the statement by Globe Investment Trust that labour is making excessive demands when, two pages later in that document, it mentions an increase in directors' salaries of 50 per cent.? Does the hon. Gentleman endorse this or is this something which he condemns?

Mr. Carr: I certainly hope that employers at all levels will exercise restraint. We do not believe in the possibility of controlling these matters by statutory control, and even the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and her Government did not exercise control over them.

Aerospace Industry

Mr. Edelman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment to what extent he


estimates the decline in the number of people employed in the aerospace industry, 9,800 between March, 1970, and March, 1971, reflects a decline in production or an increase in productivity.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Howell): It is probable that, for the aerospace industry as a whole, the decline in employment between March, 1970, and March, 1971, is a continuation of a trend which has been in evidence since 1968 and, in the period in question, is mainly due to a drop in orders on hand and the flow of net new orders.

Mr. Edelman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the viability of the whole aircraft industry depends on the viability of two very major projects, and in those circumstances will he not ask the Secretary of State to consult the Prime Minister with a view to setting up an inter-departmental committee to prepare contingency plans in the event of those projects being frustrated?

Mr. Howell: I will certainly bear in mind the major point which the hon. Gentleman made. As to his other suggestions, he can be assured that contingencies and difficulties and major problems in these two projects are constantly in the Government's mind.

Workshops for the Physically Handicapped

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many local authorities have established workshops for the physically handicapped; and how many new projects have been established in the last 10 years.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The figures are 49 and 22 respectively.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that between 11,000 and 23,000 people who are capable of sheltered employment are at present out of work and allowing for the fact that one-third of the 11,000 are all unemployable unemployed, the rate is 40 per cent.? Does the Minister not regard that as scandalous? What will he do about it?

Mr. Smith: It is true that there are about 11,000 still registered for sheltered employment, but it is our experience that a high proportion of these are not eventu

ally suitable even for sheltered employment. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that our plans for new workshops and Remploy factories over the next five years will meet entirely the current demand.

Code of Industrial Relations Practice

Mr. Adam Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are his plans for ensuring the widest possible consultation on the Code of Industrial Relations Practice.

Mr. John Page: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he now has to meet the Trades Union Congress in order to discuss the draft code of industrial practice.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement about his consultative document on the Code of Industrial Relations Practice.

Mr. R. Carr: I am anxious to receive and consider views on the consultative document from all those concerned with the conduct of industrial relations and the problems of human relations in employment. The T.U.C. have not yet sent me their views but I am very ready to meet them and discuss any changes they would propose.

Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether there appears to have been any change in the attitude of Mr. Vic Feather from that which he expressed immediately after the Consultative Document was released? If there has not been, would my right hon. Friend not agree that the country's attitude at large will be one of suspicion that the movement is not really concerned to improve industrial relations through full cooperation?

Mr. Carr: I very much regret that the T.U.C., when sending out a copy of the Code to each of its affiliated unions, accompanied it with a recommendation that the unions should not enter into consultation with the Government on the proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I believe that I express a general opinion when I say that the public expected a very different and more positive approach, and I certainly hope that it will be forth-coming.

Mr. Page: Will my right hon. Friend consider, in view of his last remarks, the possibility of a shortened version of the document which could be more widely circulated to get opinions?

Mr. Carr: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's purpose but I believe that at this consultative stage it would be wrong to circulate a shortened form. I think that when we have it in final form there should be the widest circulation and an explanatory and shortened leaflet might at that stage be advantageous.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a little hypocritical of the right hon. Gentleman, having refused to consult the T.U.C. effectively about his legal provisions, now to complain because the T.U.C. is not prepared to discuss a Code which is presented to it in a legal framework which it totally rejects? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when Parliament is going to be consulted in this matter, and whether, in view of the request pressed upon him in Committee on the Bill, Parliament will have the chance to amend this Code and that he will present the Consultative Document to Parliament in a form in which it can be amended?

Mr. Carr: It is not true of the right hon. Lady to say that I refused to consult the T.U.C. about the Bill. All I said to the T.U.C.—which it was only right and honest to say to it—was that this Government had been elected on a firm policy which was made clear and put in detail before the country over a long period and was a major part of our election manifesto, just as, for example, the nationalisation of steel was a major and firm commitment in the Labour Party's manifesto in a previous election. I thought it only right to make it quite clear to the T.U.C. that this was a firm commitment, and that while we would have maximum consultation about the manner of carrying out the commitment, we could not consult about the basic commitment itself. Therefore, I cannot accept the right hon. Lady's view. I still believe that the public will expect the T.U.C. to be more positive than so far it has been about the Code of Practice, and I believe that it will be, and I think that the great majority of trade union officials and members will see in this Code a great many things they have wanted for a long time.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask whether the right hon. Lady is aware—[HON.

MEMBERS: "No."]—that my right hon. Friend is never guilty of being hypocritical and may I ask her to take the mote out of her own eye?

Mrs. Castle: As the hon. Lady clearly recognises that I am the only effective Secretary of State for Employment, may I seize this opportunity—

Dame Irene Ward: I did not say that.

Mrs. Castle: —to ask the Shadow Secretary of State whether he will kindly reply to the second half of my supplementary question about the right of Parliament to be consulted, and our request that we should have a chance to amend this document?

Mr. Carr: If the right hon. Lady would be more soul-searching about her changes of attitude on this subject over the last few years, we might get things a little straighter. She knows as well as I do that the arrangement of parliamentary business is not for me but for the Leader of the House and must be discussed through the usual channels. That is true, as she knows, and Leaders of the House on her side as well as ours have always maintained that view—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I cannot help it if the right hon. Lady asks these questions. As to the form of the document, I am afraid that this is an Order which will be subject to affirmative Resolution procedure. The right hon. Lady knows as well as I do that unless and until parliamentary procedure is changed, this procedure does not allow the order to be amended.

Unemployment and Pay Increases

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence he has on the relationship between the workers at present unemployed and those in receipt of the largest pay increases.

Mr. R. Carr: It is self evident that excessive wage rises unmatched by increases in productivity drive up costs and therefore contribute to unemployment.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that this is the second time he has produced no evidence, although he claims that what he has said is self-evident? The right hon. Gentleman produced no evidence on Monday and named no factories. Why do London and Birmingham have the lowest unemployment and


the highest wages? Is he not aware that his theory was rejected back in the 1930s by Professor Keynes? Will he produce evidence of factories where high wages have led to unemployment?

Mr. Carr: The evidence is in a macro-economic sense. This view is held, among others, by the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who stated it, as I have reminded the House before, when he was Prime Minister. Whereas reasonable monetary increases matched by efficiency are a good spur both to demand and to real standards of living, when monetary increases proceed at a rate which cannot be absorbed, they must lead to higher prices and/or lower profits. This must reduce demand and investment and, therefore, reduce employment.

Birmingham

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the latest unemployment figures for Birmingham in their various categories, and state the total as a percentage of the workforce.

Mr. Dudley Smith: At 14th June, 22,331 people—19,547 males and 2,784 females—were registered as unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area.
Of these, 20,265 were wholly unemployed and 2,066 were temporarily stopped. The rate of unemployment was 3·3 per cent. The figures are provisional.

Mr. Carter: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware, however, that, although there is a numerical decrease in comparison with last month, male unemployment has increased? On the subject of unemployed school leavers, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity of withdrawing the reply which he gave to me earlier this week when he rested complacently, and without showing any care whatsoever, on his belief that a large number of the half-million children who will leave school in July will remain unemployed for many months to come?

Mr. Smith: I refute entirely the hon. Gentleman's allegations. The reply I gave him was a genuine reply based on the best available information my Department has. As a Midlands Member of Parliament, I yield to no one in my

concern about unemployment in Birmingham and the Birmingham area. I am, as a member of the Government, determined that these figures shall be brought down. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that, as an example of my concern, I am next week meeting the Birmingham Local Employment Committee to discuss this matter further.

Average Weekly Wage

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is now the average weekly wage for men and women; and what has been the increase in each case over the past six,. 12, and 18 months.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): In October, 1970, the average weekly earnings of full-time manual men were £2805, which was an increase of 13 per cent. over the previous 12 months and 17·3 per cent. over the previous 18 months. The corresponding figures for women were £13·99, 15·5 per cent. and 19·3 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Osborn: To what extent are those industrial groups who are already receiving the highest wages now having the highest increase, and to what extent has the purchasing power of the average wage increased or decreased over the previous five years?

Mr. Bryan: I cannot without notice answer the second part of the supplementary question in detail. On the first part, although in certain cases workers in higher-paid industries have received high increases over the months concerned and the lower-paid relatively low increases, there is no indication from my Department's records that the relative position between the higher and the lower-paid in industry is in general altering.

Mr. John Page: As my pocket computer is not working, will my hon. Friend tell me whether the figures he has given indicate that the differential between male and female wages is growing greater?

Mr. Bryan: The figures I have given do not suggest that, and recent wage council settlements have indicated a welcome trend toward the closing of the gap between men's and women's wages.

European Economic Council

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the effect on employment in the sugar refineries on Merseyside should the United Kingdom join the Common Market.

Mr. David Howell: It would be difficult to make a precise estimate but it seems likely that entry into the Common Market will not adversely affect the employment position in British refineries.

Mr. Tilney: Is my hon. Friend aware that six trade unions are much worried at possible redundancies in the sugar cane refineries? If there is to be any redundancy, will he see that it is in the rich South-East and not in the development areas of Merseyside and Scotland?

Mr. Howell: I am aware of the worries about this matter, but the settlement on Commonwealth sugar as a result of the negotiations will largely safeguard refinery supplies of raw sugar, and I assure my hon. Friend that these fears are unfounded.

Mr. Heffer: As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) said, the workers, particularly those in Tate and Lyle, Liverpool, are concerned about the future of their employment. Incidentally, they are not in favour of any sugar refinery workers being sacked, either in the South-East or in Liverpool. Will the hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that there will not be any redundancies as a result of Britain's entry into the E.E.C.?

Mr. Howell: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that from the point of view of refinery supplies of sugar there is no need for concern. Supplies will be assured under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement up to 1974, and after that will be safeguarded by negotiation and by undertakings. From that point of view there should be no need for worry.

Teachers (Scotland)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many teachers as such are signing on at his Department's offices in Scotland; for how long they have been signing; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bryan: The figure was 58 on 22nd June. Of these, 24 had been registered as unemployed for up to three months, six for up to six months, 15 for up to 12 months and 13 for more than 12 months.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has presented to us amazing figures. Bearing in mind that in Lanarkshire there is a serious shortage of secondary teachers, will he or his right hon. Friend have talks with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the possibility of an incentive scheme to induce teachers to move from areas where they are obviously not required into areas where they are urgently required, in the interests of the teachers and of the children?

Mr. Bryan: I understand that the general picture in Scotland is one of satisfied demand for teachers in some areas and of a shortage in others, notably in South-West Scotland. Obviously, there will be areas where teachers may not be able to get the jobs they want but they may do so if they are prepared to move. I will convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend.

Industrial Accidents (Inspection of Workplaces)

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage damage control inspection of workplaces to reduce industrial accidents.

Mr. Dudley Smith: A pilot study of damage control has recently been undertaken by the British Steel Corporation and my Department will examine the results in detail when these become available.

Mr. Watkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that experts in this technique can survey a workplace and recommend measures designed to eliminate potential accidents, thereby saving lives, limbs and money? Should not the Department give every encouragement to the extension of such examination to the whole of industry?

Mr. Smith: Yes, I hope that we shall do so. We believe that the system is a promising development, but if it is introduced too hurriedly it may not yield such helpful results. We must analyse what


takes place in the pilot experiments and, if they are a success, we shall do everything we can to encourage the system.

Unemployment Figures

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest official figures for unemployed in Great Britain as a whole, and by regions, respectively.

Mr. Bryan: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a direct result of the Government's policy of enforcing the discipline of the dole queue, these figures now represent more than 100 million working days lost this year? Would he bear in mind what his City counterpart said today on the question of competition in savings, namely, that such competition will result in increased interest rates, and will this not cause greater unemployment, particularly in the building industry?

Mr. Bryan: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about unemployment in his constituency, which has grown owing to the closing of heavy industry. I do not accept his diagnosis of the unemployment psition in general.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that such concern is not confined to Bolsover but is true of the whole country? When will the Government convert their shattered promises into firm proposals for action? When will the hon. Gentleman look at the possibility of giving speedy help to the jobless by, for example, accelerating and advancing the capital spending programme in the nationalised industries, local authorities and Government Departments? Is it not clear that without such a crash programme a million families will face a bleak winter?

Mr. Bryan: Much of the crash programme of which the hon. Gentleman speaks has already been undertaken or is being undertaken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] If hon. Gentlemen had listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last debate on this subject, they would have heard him announce our plans to reinvigorate the economy. What the hon. Member for Doncaster

(Mr. Harold Walker) said comes ill from a party which, during its term of office between 1965 and 1970, succeeded in doubling unemployment.

Mr. Orme: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are feeling the effects of this "crash programme" in the Greater Manchester area where unemployment has doubled over the last 12 months and where there is a serious run-down in the engineering industry, which is vital to our economy? What are the Government doing about the situation?

Mr. Bryan: We believe that the steps being taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will encourage and increase investment. This will benefit the hon. Gentleman's area.

Following is the information:


TOTAL NUMBERS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AND PERCENTAGE RATES OF UNEMPLOYMENT AT 14TH JUNE, 1971 (PROVISIONAL)



Registered Unemploye
Percentage rat


South East
141,457
1·8


East Anglia
18,281
2·8


South Western
39,242
2·9


West Midlands
73,941
3·2


East Midlands
41,209
2·9


Yorkshire and Humberside
74,458
3·7


North Western
104,358
3·6


Northern
69,655
5·3


Wales
40,410
4·2


Scotland
121,647
5·6


Great Britain
724,658
3·2

Redundancies (Middlesex)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if, in view of the increase in industrial redundancies in the Middlesex area, including Ealing and Hillingdon, he will consider holding a conference between officials of his Department and employers and trade union representatives within the area.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Local employment committees throughout the country are appointed to advise my right hon. Friend. They meet regularly to discuss local employment matters and there are such committees covering the area concerned. Their members include employers and trade unionists and officials of my Department also attend.

Mr. Molloy: The reply has nothing whatever to do with the Question. Does


the hon. Gentleman realise that it is no comfort to people in my constituency, who because of Tory policies have seen unemployment rapidly increase, to be told that there are not so many unemployed in the Greater London area as elsewhere? Does he not appreciate that it is a disaster in a family when the breadwinner becomes unemployed? Will he withdraw his inane reply and give me a proper reply—a reply to which the unemployed in my constituency are entitled? If he cannot do so, will he not have the courage to resign?

Mr. Smith: I will not resign, nor will I give a different reply from that which I have just given the hon. Gentleman which meets the circumstances of the hon. Gentleman's Question. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would consider holding a conference. We believe that the work done by the local employment committees, on which all sectors of industry are represented, can adequately convey to us the feelings which are paramount in the hon. Gentleman's area. The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate his case. He well knows that, although at the moment unemployment is a serious problem, the situation is a lot better in his part of the country than elsewhere.

Mr. Molloy: Could we be told what is "better unemployment"?

Unemployment Figures (Scotland)

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest Scottish unemployment figures; and how they compare with the same period in 1970.

Mr. Bryan: The total numbers of people registered as unemployed in Scotland at June, 1971 and June, 1970 were 121,647 and 84,131, respectively. The figure for June, 1971 is provisional.

Mr. Sillars: Are these not absolutely disgraceful figures? How does the Miniter square them with the promise given by the Prime Minister to cut unemployment at a stroke? Is the Minister aware that on prices, unemployment and on all other aspects of Government policy the people in Scotland, as well as in other part of the United Kingdom, treat all Government statements and promises, including those on the Common Market, with contemptuous disbelief?

Mr. Bryan: I shall be very surprised if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a promise that he would cut unemployment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes he did."]—in Scotland at a stroke. The reason he would not have done so is that the trend was already there. In the year before the years I quoted unemployment rose by 12 per cent. Therefore, the trend was unlikely to be turned round at a stroke.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment in many parts of Scotland, including my own area, has occurred in the capital goods industries because of the cut-back in investment resulting from the squeeze on profits applied by the fiscal policies of the Labour Government, and also as a result of the impact of the wage-cost inflation brought about by the previous Government? In these circumstances will he treat the outcries from the Opposition with the contempt they deserve?

Mr. Bryan: I will certainly do that. The situation now depends on the policies we are putting forward.

Mr. Ross: Could the Minister say when unemployment last rose in Scotland in the month of June?

Mr. Bryan: Not without notice, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to notice the steps which we are taking—steps which he when Secretary of State for Scotland did not take. In fact, we have made a large part of the West of Scotland into a special development area and we are giving inducements of a kind which have never been given before. In due course these will have their effect.

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of males unemployed in Scotland; and what is the percentage increase in the number of males unemployed in Scotland since last June.

Mr. Bryan: At 14th June the provisional number of males registered as unemployed in Scotland was 100,023. This was a rate of 7·6 per cent. compared with 5·2 per cent. in June, 1970.

Mr. Strang: Had the hon. Gentleman been willing to answer my Question, he would have said that the number of male unemployed in Scotland has increased by 44 per cent. since last June.


Surely he is aware that unemployment in Scotland is now a national disaster. Are the Government satisfied with the effects of their present economic policies?

Mr. Bryan: I think that I answered that Question a little earlier. As for the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, the Government have taken action which was not taken before. Edinburgh has been made an intermediate area. I hope that this will bring it benefit.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has no more answered this Question than he has answered the Question when the Prime Minister will apologise to the country for his promise to reduce unemployment "at a stroke"?

Mr. Bryan: I suggest that the right hon. Lady puts that question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Captain W. Elliot: Will my hon. Friend contemplate taking a pneumatic drill to implant in the solid ivory opposite the plain fact that cost inflation is the greatest creator of unemployment?

Mr. Bryan: I doubt whether even that would be effective.

Irish Migratory Workers

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will have talks with the Irish Embassy about migratory workers; and what plans he has for regulating the activities of labour contractors.

Mr. David Howell: I am aware of the allegations of intimidation, underpayment and sub-standard living conditions of certain Irish immigrant seasonal workers employed in Scottish agriculture. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is investigating these. If the hon. Member has other matters in mind, I should be pleased to have details. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is not contemplating special action to regulate the activities of labour contractors.

Mr. Duffy: In view of the growing activities of labour-leasing agencies involved in the recruitment of British workers for employment on the Continent, notably in German shipyards and steelworks, would it not be desirable for his

right hon. Friend to put this recruitment on an official footing in labour exchanges?

Mr. Howell: I cannot comment at the moment on the point which the hon. Gentleman raised in his original Question, since these matters are still being investigated. As for the broader point raised in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary Question, we do not see the need for legislation. We think that the resources available will be better spent on improving public employment services than on more and more controls.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under the new Immigration Bill, Commonwealth citizens will have to enter the country to work on work permits and will in future be temporary and migratory? In view of that, when will his Department reveal the intended numbers of work permits, so that we know how many temporary and, therefore, migratory workers we shall have under the new set-up?

Mr. Howell: That is going a long way from the original Question, which was about Irish immigrant workers in Scotland. There is free movement of labour between Ireland and Great Britain. If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question on the other point, I shall be delighted to answer it.

Mr. Duffy: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Wolverhampton

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and women are wholly or temporarily unemployed in the Wolverhampton area as covered by his Department's office there; what percentage of unemployment this represents; how this compares with the previous three months figures; and what action he intends to take to help those out of work there to find employment.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Provisional figures for 14th June indicate that 3,509 males and 587 females were registered as unemployed in the Wolverhampton Employment Exchange Area. The percentage


rates of unemployment for the Wolverhampton travel-to-work area were 3·6 in May and June, 3·3 in April and 3·5 in March. All the facilities of my Department's employment services will continue to be available to those who need help.

Mrs. Short: Is not it clear from that reply that the blight of Toryism has spread over the whole country, including the formerly prosperous West Midlands area? Is not that an indictment of the Government's failure to take action to get the country's economy moving? Does the hon. Gentleman's Department intend to take action on the recommendations of the West Midlands Economic Planning Council which were published recently? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that, next month, 2,500 children will be leaving school and looking for jobs? Is he aware, finally, that we on this side of the House and the country as a whole view with contempt and derision the continuing excuses made by Ministers in his Department for the calamitous situation of the economy?

Mr. Smith: I thought that the hon. Lady was about to say that she viewed with cautious optimism the fact that the underlying upward trend of unemployment was beginning to die away. I believe that that is far more significant for the people of Wolverhampton than the series of clichés contained in the hon. Lady's speech to the House this afternoon. I should have thought that Wolverhampton would benefit from the measures already taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, along with the rest of the West Midlands, as they begin to work, some of them coming into operation this month.

Mrs. Short: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Committee on Safety Training

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many times the Committee on Safety Training has met since 1967; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The Sub-Committee on Safety Training of the Industrial

Safety Advisory Council has met five times since it was set up in 1967.

Mr. Huckfield: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many times this Committee has met as a whole committee, and how many times its sub-committees have met? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain people who were invited to be members when it was first set up in 1967 have not been informed yet that there has been a meeting?

Mr. Smith: The full Advisory Council has met twice since it was first appointed. The work has been fairly modest in content, but there is no question of trying to eliminate the Committee. Any member of the sub-committee or of the Council who feels that he has a specific point which should be discussed has only to get in touch with the secretariat in my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN MOVEMENT (SPEECHES BY CIVIL SERVANTS)

Mr. McBride: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the practice of his administration that senior civil servants should appear in the rôle of speakers at meetings organised by the European Movement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): There has been no change in the practice whereby civil servants participate in conferences and seminars with the permission of their Departments.

Mr. McBride: Is the Prime Minister aware that I have before me a cutting from the South Wales Ech of 16th June which reports that a senior civil servant accompanied the Minister of State, Welsh Office and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to a meeting of the European Movement, which is an organisation with a biased view? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the meeting was given information which repeated Questions from me and my Welsh colleagues have failed to elicit from the Secretary of State for Wales? Is not it clear that the attendance of senior civil servants at such meetings is an attempt by the Prime Minister to tilt the balance of public opinion unfairly towards accession to the Treaty of Rome?

The Prime Minister: The position is that the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a private affair at which newspaper, television and radio editors were briefed by two Ministers. It may have been reported in the Press, but I understand that it was not a public meeting. The official was there to answer questions on matters of fact. There has been no change in this practice from that followed under previous Administrations. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that the situation is not as I have described it, I will consider it at once. If he had sent it to me beforehand, I should have been able to give a more detailed answer.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mrs. Renée Short: On your knees.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of the application made by the Leader of the Opposition, when Prime Minister, to join the Common Market, would not he make a suitable supporting speaker at such gatherings?

The Prime Minister: This has a bearing on the question. On previous occasions, even when the policy was that being pursued just by the Government alone, senior civil servants have taken part, with the permission of their Departments, in giving factual information. On this issue, our application having been made by two consecutive Governments of different parties, it is even more justifiable that senior civil servants should answer questions of fact.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Whatever the rights or wrongs of this case—as usual, the Prime Minister has not told us very much about it—will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be less necessary to employ civil servants if the responsible Minister gave us the facts in public? I do not know whether the civil servant on this occasion gave this privately briefed meeting information about the memorandum from the Commission on steel and coal and the removal of the British Government's responsibility in those two cases. Will he tell us why the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not inform the House at the time?

The Prime Minister: The position on the Coal and Steel Community has in no way changed from the time when the

right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister and his Administration made application.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that these issues have only recently been settled, because the Coal and Steel Community and Euratom negotiations were running behind the general programme of the other negotiations. The documents put forward in the negotiations are confidential and have always been treated as such, both in the 1961–63 and the 1967 discussions, and in the present negotiations. I suggest that it is impossible to carry on negotiations if every document exchanged between the parties is made public. When the White Paper is published, we shall do our utmost to make as clear as possible the exact position about the Coal and Steel Community.
I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he was Prime Minister and the Labour Government put forward their policy on industrial relations, "In Place of Strife"—which, to say the least, was not entirely non-controversial—senior civil servants in the Departments at that time took part in similar briefings to those to which he has referred.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt produce the evidence of any Press reports about it. Will he stick to the question which I put to him? [Interruption.] That will be a change, will it not? Is he aware that it seems a little illogical to say that nothing has changed since we put in the application but that what has developed on coal and steel has developed only in the last six weeks? He cannot have it both ways. Will he say why we were not told for six or seven weeks about this important intimation to the Government, which was never made to us—that is the difference—about the lack of control by the Government, of whatever party, on steel and coal and the removal of consumer protection and consumer councils? Why was the House not told this by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that, in accordance with the words—

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman will never get off the hook that way.

Mr. Harold Wilson: —in accordance with the too long words with which he prefaced his manifesto, this is dealing directly and honestly with Parliament, the Press and the public?

The Prime Minister: The Question with which I am dealing is about a civil servant taking part in briefings. That has nothing whatever to do with the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the specific subject of the Coal and Steel Community. I said that the factual situation has not changed since the Labour Government made their application. What has happened is that the Community itself put the document in the course of the negotiations to my right and learned Friend, who was conducting the negotiations. It is right that the correct procedure should be followed that, when a conclusion is reached, my right hon. and learned Friend should tell the House what that conclusion is. That he did in his last statement about the Coal and Steel Community. I have already assured the right hon. Gentleman that the position will be set out as clearly as possible in the White Paper.
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the control by Governments of coal and steel is exercised through the Council of Ministers and through the Commissioners in the Community in the same way as the rest of the European arrangements. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to face this situation honestly and to acknowledge it.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN

Mr. Strang: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to visit Japan before the end of the year.

The Prime Minister: During his recent visit to London the Japanese Foreign Minister kindly invited me to visit his country. I said that I would like to do so, but no specific plans have yet been made.

Mr. Strang: Will the Prime Minister go to Japan at the earliest possible moment and make a close study of the methods whereby successive Governments have carefully nurtured the Japanese shipbuilding industry? When he returns will he go to Clydeside and explain to the workers there how, after years of mismanagement,

his Government's lame duck philosophy will enable them to create the kind of shipbuilding industry to which the people of this country are entitled?

The Prime Minister: I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman had put down a serious Question about visiting Japan. I should very much like to go to Japan. I regret not previously having had the opportunity. However, the hon. Gentleman will recall that many missions have been from this country to Japan to study the shipbuilding industry, from the late 1940s, under the first postwar Labour Government, and subsequently. They came back with recommendations for an increase in technology in shipbuilding, the introduction of modern equipment, shift working, and the abolition of restrictive practices. Those measures could make British shipbuilding today just as efficient as Japanese shipbuilding.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: As one who has visited shipyards in Japan, may I suggest that if my right hon. Friend were to accept that invitation, possibly the group of people he could most constructively take with him to see the Japanese shipyards would be the shop stewards from our own shipyards?

The Prime Minister: With respect to my hon. Friend, many shop stewards in our shipbuilding industry today realise the need for bringing about these changes. When I visited the Lower Clyde and talked to the shop stewards, they were insistent upon these changes being brought about, and they did not wish to be joined with Upper Clyde. It is the Government's intention to bring about a reconstruction on the Upper Clyde to ensure a viable shipbuilding industry which can compete with the rest of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — CITY OF LONDON

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the City of London.

The Prime Minister: I do so from time to time. The most recent occasion was when I attended the lunch which the Lord Mayor of London gave last Tuesday in honour of the Prime Minister of Italy.

Mr. Jenkins: When the right hon. Gentleman visits the City again, will he make a point of visiting the offices of the trade journal The Groce and ask the editor how many price rises there have been since the General Election? If the editor tells him that there have been over 7,000 price rises since the General Election, will he then make an apology to the nation on television for misleading the country at the time of the General Election?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps I might also visit the offices of the Financial Time and consult those journalists who wrote the article which cast some doubt on the conclusions of the editor to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRECONSHIRE

Mr. Roderick: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Breconshire.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Roderick: I think that it is a pity, because the Prime Minister could help me to explain to my constituents a problem which has arisen due to Answers which I have been receiving from a couple of his Departments. Is the Prime Minister aware that when I asked the Secretary of State for Wales for the number of notified redundancies from 1st January—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I have to read, because there are figures involved. Is the Prime Minister aware that the figure which I was given for notified redundancies from 1st January to 5th March was 52 and to 29th March 715? On 18th May the Question was transferred to the Department of Employment and the figure was reduced to 99. Will he explain to my constituents why this should be?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Does he propose to transfer all unpleasant Questions to the Department of Employment so that it can make the answers more palatable?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must assume his own responsibilities to his own constituents.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware that I think he is a very wise man—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear,

hear."]—not to rush into this dangerous invitation, but that if he does pluck up courage and decide to face the Welsh people he will be guaranteed a warm welcome from the 10,000 additional unemployed, from the parents of the 160,000 schoolchildren whom he has cheated of free school milk in order to pay for schools, and from ratepayers, pensioners and housewives who are going frantic with the increase in the cost of living?

The Prime Minister: I have always had a very agreeable reception in Wales, and I have no doubts about going there again.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, out of the characteristic charity and generosity that I always extend to him, when I visit Brecon and Radnor tomorrow night I shall forbear from telling the people there of the characteristic levity of hon. Gentlemen opposite about the unemployment problem in that area? And since the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of going to discover for himself, I shall get the facts and send them to him.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the people of Wales will appreciate that. The last time I was there they commented that the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Prime Minister, passed through at 80 mile an hour, and when one Welshman asked another why that was so, he replied, "Because he could not go any faster".

MALTA

Mr. Duncan Sandys: Mr. Duncan Sandys (by Private Notice) ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the denunciation of the Anglo Maltese Defence Agreement by the Malta Government last night.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): A public statement was issued yesterday evening by the Malta Government to the effect that the 1964 Defence Agreement with Britain was no longer in being. No official communication in these terms has been received by the British Government, who consider that both the Defence Agreement, and consequently the Financial Assistance Agreement which is dependent on it, have always remained legally in force and still do so. The only official communication from the Malta


Government with which we have to deal is the Prime Minister of Malta's proposal for revision of the agreements. The House will be aware that only on 25th June a joint statement was issued by our two Governments announcing that the British Government had received that proposal, that contacts had started, and that our High Commissioner in Valletta would be returning to London this week for consultations. He returned to London last night.

Mr. Sandys: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's clear confirmation that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government this agreement cannot be unilaterally abrogated, may I ask my right hon. Friend to remind the new Prime Minister of Malta that, although we have feelings of great affection for the Maltese people, the military facilities in Malta are no longer of the same strategic importance that they were in the last war, and that it would therefore be unwise of him to make unreasonable financial demands upon Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. In considering the proposal of the Prime Minister of Malta, we shall certainly have in mind, on the one hand, the long and historic association between Britain and Malta, as well as the strategic importance of the naval and air facilities there, but, like my hon. Friend, we shall, on the other hand, have to consider whether the financial terms on which the Malta Government wish to base a revision of our agreement corresponds to the real value that we can attach in present-day conditions to the continued use of Malta's facilities for our defence purposes.

Mr. Healey: While welcoming the Minister's last assurance, and contrasting it with the attitude taken by the Conservative Party when the Labour Government decided to run down facilities in Malta, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that not only are the facilities far less important to Britain, with the ending of the Anglo-Libyan Defence Agreement, but that N.A.T.O.'s main concern is that the island should not be available to a potential enemy? Will he therefore consider seriously the possibility of neutralising Malta, as proposed by Malta's Prime

Minister, since that would be both the safest solution and by far the cheapest for the British taxpayer?

Mr. Godber: I do not think that there is any point in commenting on the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question—

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Godber: —because it is not relevant to the point with which I am seeking to deal, although I should be happy to deal with it in debate.
What we are dealing with is an attempt by the Malta Government unilaterally to abrogate all our arrangements, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we shall bear in mind the various aspects to which he has referred, but I think that our duty is first to have consultations with our own High Commissioner and then to have discussions with the Malta Government on these very matters, and therefore I prefer not to comment on the wider issues that he has raised.

Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that with the south coast of the Mediterranean and the north coast of Africa potentially hostile, Malta is still of great strategic importance, more to N.A.T.O. than to this country? Will he undertake that in any negotiations which may take place the British Goverment will attempt to safeguard the position of our N.A.T.O. allies on the island?

Mr. Godber: I think it is important to realise that the formal arrangements are between Malta and Britain. That is the first important thing to establish. We shall have the closest consultation with our N.A.T.O. allies about any arrangements that we may make, but I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the words that I used in my original reply, which were carefully chosen, about the present strategic value of Malta.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that the people of Malta have just perfectly democratically expressed their view at a General Election and that the British people would dearly like the chance to do the same?

Mr. Godber: The British people expressed their view a year ago and in much more convincing fashion that the people of Malta did.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The business for next week will be as follows:—

MONDAY, 5TH JULY and TUESDAY, 6TH JULY—Report stage of the Finance Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 7TH JULY—Completion of the Report stage and Third Reading of the Finance Bill.

THURSDAY, 8TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.

FRIDAY, 9TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Housing Bill, the Hijacking Bill, the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Bill [Lords], the Mineral Working (Offshore Installations) Bill [Lords], and the Friendly Societies Bill [Lords].

MONDAY, 12TH JULY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions until Seven o'clock.

Afterwards, Second Reading of the Diplomatic and Other Privileges Bill and the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords].

Remaining stages of the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill [Lords] and the Land Registration and Land Charges Bill [Lords].

Motions on the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 3) Order, the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Order and the Medicines (Surgical Materials) Order.

Mr. Harold Wilson: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the White Paper on the E.E.C. to be published? Secondly, in view of the strong feelings expressed yesterday, which drove the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry into lifting the veil a little on the secret manoeuvrings, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will make a full statement to the House next week on the question of steel and of coal? Thirdly, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a fortnight ago, when we gave notice of a Motion of censure on the economic situation, he said that the Government wanted a two-day debate?

We have not heard about that recently. When does he intend to have a two-day economic debate? Will he confirm that it will be fully in Government time, as I think was understood?

Mr. Whitelaw: The White Paper will be published next week. It will include all the details, and therefore I do not think that the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested from my right hon. and learned Friend will be necessary.
As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate from the sense of my other suggestion a fortnight ago, we have had, properly and naturally, in Government time, a one-day debate on the censure Motion which the Opposition tabled on the economic situation. Now, of course, we have to fit in a long debate, as the House wishes, on the "Take Note" Motion on the Common Market, which has been promised. I cannot give any undertaking about a further debate on the economic situation, but I am always ready to have discussions on this or any other matter through the usual channels.

Mr. Harold Wilson: For the first time within the knowledge of most of us the right hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous here, and I am sure that that is not his wish. When I gave notice of a one-day Motion of censure two weeks ago today he said that the Government wanted a two-day debate. That was then his intention. While it is true that we have now had the one-day debate—and, of course, it became clear that the Government were postponing a two-day economic debate—will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government intend to initiate a two-day, one-day or any other length of economic debate between now and the recess, or whether, despite what he said, the Government are not proposing to have an economic debate before the House rises?

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman is not being quite fair in saying that I was slightly disingenuous. The suggestion I made for the two-day debate was put forward in response to his statement that he was tabling a censure Motion on the economic situation. If he looks at my words on that occasion he will see that what I suggested was that the Government might have another day and that together we could have a


two-day debate tied in with the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman will find that that is what I said then and I stand by that today. I do not think that I have gone back on the question of a two-day debate. I have now said that, having had a one-day debate on the censure Motion, I am prepared to consider the possibility of a further debate. In view of the timetable before the recess, however, I cannot give a further undertaking now, but I will consider it through the usual channels.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously floundering. We all know why. We have sympathy with him and conclusions will be drawn from his statement. Is he aware that when he referred to a two-day debate he said that this could be discussed through the usual channels? When that discussion took place it turned out that the Government did not want to have our Supply Day for the censure Motion but were thinking of a debate rather later on. Now they are no longer interested in a debate later on. Has this anything to do with the division in the Cabinet about economic policy?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am beginning to wonder who is floundering now. I am not floundering. I have my words here, but I will not bore the House with them now. What I have said is correct. What I have always said, and what I repeat, is that of course I am prepared to consider the possibility of a one-day debate, which was the original plan before the House rose, on the economic situation. I am simply not giving any undertaking today in view of the other business we have before the House rises.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of questions relating to matters for inclusion in the White Paper on the E.E.C. are still awaiting answer, although in many cases the days they were set down for answer have already passed? Will he use his influence to see that these questions are answered as quickly as possible—and answered to the effect that these important matters will be specifically dealt with in the White Paper?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will look into that point.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that at the same time as the White Paper is published, or at about that time, the memorandum of the E.E.C. Commission on proposals put to the Government about the British steel industry will be published so that hon. Members can see what those proposals are?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier. All matters relating to this and the position will be set out in the White Paper, but parts of the negotions of course will not.

Dame Irene Ward: Can we have an assurance that the Industrial Relations Bill will be on the Statute Book before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is the Government's intention.

Mr. Shore: In view of the number of serious fires that have occurred in the London area this year, including the unfortunate and tragic fire in Cable Street, Stepney, last night, and in view of the allegations that there is a possibility of arson in some of these cases, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Home Secretary as to the desirability of making a statement next week on this general subject, which, if these allegations are true, is a worrying phenomenon?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly do what the right hon. Gentleman asks.

Mr. Kilfedder: Can my right hon. Friend provide time to debate the inept and bungling way in which the United Nations is organising relief for East Pakistan? Can he also provide time, on a separate occasion, to debate the situation in Pakistan itself?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be wrong for me in my answer to accept the accusations my hon. Friend has made. It is not for me to comment on them. I cannot see time for such debates before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Mrs. Castle: As the Secretary of State for Employment earlier repudiated any responsibility for seeing that the House had an opportunity to discuss the Consultative Document on the Code of Practice for Industrial Relations, can the right


hon. Gentleman give us any indication now that the House will have that right and, secondly, when? Will he also deal with another point with which the Secretary of State refused to deal, namely, the possibility of putting the draft Code before the House of Commons in a form which is amendable, which was the desire expressed on both sides of the House during the Committee stage of the Bill?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will discuss with my right hon. Friend the points which the right hon. Lady has put forward. Naturally, I should welcome a debate and I would like to discuss the question of timing through the usual channels.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: When may we expect a statement on Rolls-Royce and the negotiations taking place? Does my right hon. Friend realise that it would be most unsatisfactory if we went into recess before we had any idea of what was going to happen about Rolls-Royce?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I cannot indicate when such a statement might be made.

Mr. John Mendelson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not good enough for him to say, with reference to the White Paper to be published next week, that he has nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said? He must be aware that the contents of the documents submitted by the Community to the British negotiating team on 5th May are in the hands of a newspaper and that large chunks of it have been published. Hon. Members representing steel and coal constituencies, as well as other hon. Members, have a perfect right to have the details of that document laid on the Table of the House so that those most directly concerned before the "Take Note" debate can see what the E.E.C. is ruling out as inadmissible after sovereign decisions have been made by this House about our publicly-owned industries?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but whether he thinks it good enough or not, the truth is that I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said.

Mr. Harold Wilson: But the Prime Minister made clear, when I was asking—as I am asking now—for a statement by

the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that this matter would be dealt with by the White Paper. Is that so? If not, can we have the text of this document?

Mr. Whitelaw: I answered that I believed it would be, and that is what my right hon. Friend said. That is why I said that I could not say more than I did.

Mr. Bob Brown: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen a Motion on the Order Paper dealing with the proposed location of the value-added tax centre at Southend, signed in the main by Labour Members, and largely by members of the Northern group of Labour Members.

[That this House deplores the decision of the Government to place the central control organisation of the Value-Added Tax Office at Southend, which is totally irreconcilable with the policy of successive Governments on the dispersal of Government departments outside the congested area of London and the South-East, because this decision flagrantly disregards the acknowledged claims of the development areas and, in particular, wholly ignores the claims of the Northern Region with its critical unemployment, including 4,000 clerical workers, thus exacerbating the serious consequences of closing and shelving important Government headquarters in the Region by the present Government.]

We might have expected the hon. Members for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) to sign the Motion, although I can understand why the Leader of the House has not signed it. However, I am sure that he will have brought pressure to bear on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Chancellor will make a statement indicating that the matter has been reconsidered and that the centre will be located where it should have been proposed in the first place—in the Northern Region?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I cannot give him any hope about the statement which he requests.

Mr. Whitehead: In view of the immense and unique importance of the debate on the White Paper on Britain's


entry to the Common Market, has the right hon. Gentleman put to the appropriate Committee the request which I made to him last week about broadcasting on sound radio the whole of the "Take Note" debate?

Mr. Whitelaw: The Services Committee will consider next week the question of the sound broadcasting of the Common Market debates. I do not think that it will be possible to broadcast the "Take Note" debate. The Services Committee will be considering the matter and will recommend to the House about the possibility of broadcasting the main debate in October.

Mr. Callaghan: I should like to revert to the question of the European Coal and Steel Community. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the document which it is said emanated from the Commission contains a list of nearly five foolscap pages of restrictions and practices in force in the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation which will become out of order and will have to be discontinued if we join the Community? Is it not fair that the House should know whether this document, which has had unofficial circulation, is genuine and whether the list of prohibitions and restrictions is accurate? Is it not right that we should be able to see that document and know whether it is official and the Government's reply to it? As I imagine that it is too much to expect it to be contained in the White Paper—and it is a very long document which I have seen—would it not be better if the Minister were to make a separate statement or publish a separate White Paper on the issue?

Mr. Whitelaw: I was not aware of the facts which the right hon. Gentleman has adduced. I shall naturally look into them, but I cannot give any further undertaking.

Mr. Rose: In view of the astonishing amount of business before the House and the declared intention of the Leader of the House to force through the Industrial Relations Bill before the end of July, will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the House will have adequate time to debate the more than 180 Amendments which have been made in the

Lords? Is he already beginning to sharpen another guillotine?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman should look at the terms of the original Motion put before the House.

Dr. Gilbert: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many days he proposes to give to the "Take Note" debate? If he cannot tell us now, when may we know?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot give the exact time. I have discussed this matter, and will continue to do so, through the usual channels and, I hope, reach a conclusion which is satisfactory to the House. I hope to be able to do so next week. But I can guarantee that the time given will be very reasonable and that all the House will think so.

Mr. Skinner: I should like to revert to the secret document relating to the E.C.S.C. Treaty. As the Leader of the House was a little coy about saying whether a White Paper will be published, may I take it that the Questions which I have on today's Order Paper relating to the practices and provisions of the E.C.S.C. Treaty and the restrictions on the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation and the Coal Board being prevented from operating its own pricing policy will be answered?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that I have been coy about the publication of a White Paper. I said that a White Paper will be published next week. If the hon. Gentleman puts Questions on the Order Paper they will be answered.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: If the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's previous answer is that he proposes to truncate or prevent discussion in the House of Amendments made in another place, does he agree that that would be a constitutional scandal of the first order? It would be resisted on this side of the House by every possible means.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think it would be a constitutional scandal. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the previous motion he will see the basis on which we shall proceed when the Bill comes back from another place.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: In view of the refusal of the Secretary of State for Wales


to publish a White Paper on the possible consequences for Wales of Britain's entry to the Common Market, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the White Paper will include a chapter on the consequences for the development areas as a whole? Unless that is done, the people of Wales and Scotland will not be able to make an accurate judgment.

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be wrong for me to prejudge what will be published in the White Paper next week.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Crouch: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how we in the House can protect ourselves from being held to ridicule. We are getting accustomed—[Interruption.] I am talking about the behaviour of the whole House and not just of mine. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] I am speaking for the whole House.
The point which I wish to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, concerns the type of Question which is addressed to the Prime Minister, of which we have had four examples today, namely, a request that my right hon. Friend makes official visits to various places. We have been used to this type of Question for some time. I feel that Members should be requested to direct Questions to the Prime Minister about the matter on which they are really concerned and show that they are concerned, namely, British shipbuilding, rather than a visit to Japan and about rising prices rather than an official visit to the City of London.
I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you can bring some influence to bear so that Questions may be more sensible and less tedious and do not try the patience of the House so much.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Heffer: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that many hon. Members have endeavoured to put Questions to the Prime Minister on specific issues? I tried to table a Question

to the Prime Minister inviting him to Liverpool to look at the problem of unemployment there. I was told by the Table Office that I could only table a Question inviting him to Liverpool. I was not very interested in the right hon. Gentleman merely going to Liverpool; I wished him to see the problem of unemployment there.
How can we put Questions to the Prime Minister on specific issues, as we wish to do, without having to go through the nonsense of inviting him to some city or asking him to visit some other country?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. But I am aware of the importance attached to it by hon. Members; I referred to it in a statement which I made the day before yesterday. I suggested that the matter of the transfer of Questions should be considered by those whose responsibility it is to consider it. I understand and have some sympathy with the importance attached to the matter by hon. Members, but it must rest there for the time being because the Chair has no control over it.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Highways Act, 1971.
2. Education (Scotland) Act, 1971.
3. Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1971.
4. Nullity of Marriage Act, 1971.
5. Redemption of Standard Securities (Scotland) Act, 1971.
6. Shipbuilding Industry Act, 1971.
7. Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Act, 1971.
8. Oldham Corporation Act, 1971.
9. Southampton Corporation (Southampton Common) Act, 1971.
10. Great Southern Cemetery and Crematorium Company Act, 1971.
11. Lancashire County Council (General Powers) Act, 1971.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order. I wish to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. We are advised that the proposed subject for debate today is the Consultative Document on National Health Service reorganisation. May it be made perfectly clear that this is in the singular and that no indication has been given that we shall be discussing a similar document issued for Wales which has many differences from the English document. It is only the Consultative Document referring to the National Health Service reorganisation in England that will be discussed.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the House. This debate is taking place on the Adjournment and, therefore, the powers of the Chair to limit the debate are circumscribed.

Mr. George Thomas: Further to that point of order and with every respect to you, Mr. Speaker, it is surely the long-established custom of the House that major subjects put down for debate are indicated to the Opposition and to the House as a whole. May we have an understanding from the Government, through you, Sir, that what the Order Paper says is what the Government intend?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that, as this is a Supply Day, the business is as required and as put down by the Opposition. I understand—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has confirmed—that there will be an opportunity for the Welsh Grand

Committee to consider the Welsh document.

Mr. George Thomas: But it is not being discussed today.

5.1 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: As the Leader of the House has just confirmed, the time to debate the Consultative Document on National Health Service reorganisation has been found by the Opposition. Before launching on a discussion of the document, I will begin by making a protest on behalf of the Opposition that we should have to find the time for a debate of the first importance on the Government proposals for the National Health Service. We should, of course, prefer to use our time to censure the Government for things which they have done with which we do not agree. I feel very strongly that for the Opposition to have to give their time, as a matter of public responsibility, so that a consultative document can be genuinely consulted about, is a travesty of the use of Government time in the House.
Having said that, I will look at the far-reaching proposals made in the document for the reorganisation of the National Health Service, which remains the most ambitious of all our social services and is in many ways unique. There are, undoubtedly, certain weaknesses in the National Health Service, for all the outstanding achievements that it has to its credit in the last 23 years. Most of these weaknesses flow from the organisational structure of the Health Service, which no longer completely meets the needs of the time.
I will indicate briefly some of the distortions that have developed in the National Health Service, and which were recognised closely in the Green Paper issued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). The first of these is the continuing domination of the hospital section of the service, a domination which is perhaps reflected by the fact that in 1968–69–and there is no reason to think this has greatly changed—no less than 62 per cent. of the expenditure in the service was on the hospitals, and only 9 per cent. was on the general practitioner services. My right hon. Friend said on the last occasion—an occasion found in


Government time—when the second Green Paper was discussed, referring to the need for extra money for the reorganisation of the health service:
… the major reason for this is that our services have become hospital-dominated to an extent which is not in the interest either of the patient or of the taxpayer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1970, Vol. 798, c. 997.]
Secondly, as we well know, within the hospital section of the National Health Service there has been a predominance, which has not much diminished, of the acute hospitals over hospitals for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. Above all, in the last two years the House of Commons, as representative of the needs of the most inarticulate minorities in our midst, has rightly pressed for a greater degree of priority for mental hospitals, not least the mental subnormality hospitals.
Thirdly, I think both parties will agree that there has been a relative neglect of community care, a relative weakness in local authority services to support the health service and, until recently, a relative weakness in the position of the family doctor service as well, although that family doctor service remains outstanding in the history of all the health services of the world.
We on this side of the House necessarily welcome the integration of the National Health Service, which is one of the features of the Consultative Document which bears on the work that was carried out in the first and second Green Papers of the last Labour Government. We also welcome the fact that the boundaries between the new health authorities and the local authorities are, at least at area level, to be coterminous. This provides the opportunity for closer cooperation between the personal social services, reorganised as the result of the Seebohm Act, and the National Health Service. But at that point our disagreements begin, and they are very fierce, with this new version of the Consultative Document.
I have already referred to the weaknesses in community care which is meant to a great extent to support those in the community who are handicapped, ill, or mentally subnormal. Yet, on this crucial question of closer co-operation between the personal social services and the health service, the document retreats from any decisions or recommendations into what

is described as a "working party". One of the striking things about the document is that whenever things get a bit rough it digs up a working party and puts off decisions for some other occasion.
On the question of day-to-day management, although the Consultative Document states clearly that it believes management of the Health Service to be of central importance, it again hides in an expert study, the results of which will not be made known to the House before the end of the period of consultation. On the crucial question of communications within the Health Service we are offered yet another working party, the results of which, again, are unlikely to be available before the end of July.
So my first point is that the Consultative Document is a travesty of a consultative document because there is very little consultation, very little time for consultation and some of the crucial recommendations will not even be available for consultation because they will not be ready in time. Because of this, and because the document has created a considerable degree of disturbance within the medical profession, within the local authorities and among others who wish to be consulted about it, I ask the Secretary of State why the Consultative Document has had so little circulation amongst those most concerned, why it did not reach individual hospital management committees and many executive councils, why a medical staff administrator of a major hospital has to this day been unable to get hold of a copy of the document from normal sources, and why it was not made readily available to all individuals, including the public who wished their views to be known?
Secondly, still on the question of consultation, why have the Government offered so little time? According to the Government, it will be the spring of 1974 before we shall need to bring the reorganised National Health Service into line with the reorganised local authorities. This means, if legislation were introduced in the House in the autumn of 1972, that there would be ample time for the legislation, ample time for discussion on it, and ample time for the administrative arrangements to be made.
But no, the suggestion, for some extraordinary reason, is that this crucial issue in politics shall only be discussed and


consulted about for ten weeks or slightly less, that by the end of July the period of consultation will be over on a document that was only issued at the end of May and which was extremely difficult to get hold of after that. Furthermore, after that stage, the recommendations coming forward from the working parties will deal with some of the crucial issues in the National Health Service but will not be open to consultation.
All of us in the House believe in consultation. We all believe in a move towards Green Papers and in greater discussion and democracy in our midst. But the Government must learn that if they talk about consultation they must mean consultation. There is all too much evidence on this occasion that they did not for one moment mean what they said.
One body which has made its views on this subject known and which, by its nature, is not particularly Socialist in composition is the County Councils Association. In a recent document which it circulated to members of the House, the association said
The success of the proposed reorganisation will depend on finding answers to these outstanding problems…"—
that was referring to the working party—
… and legislation should await, if not the outcome, at least the basic proposals made by both these two groups. As these can scarcely be settled before the commencement of the coming Parliamentary Session, the association trust that legislation will not be introduced until the following Session in the Autumn of 1972.
Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State to say that that will be done, that we will accede to the requests of responsible bodies for time to consult, and that there will be no question of rushing the House into legislation on this crucial issue with a pathetically short timetable.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Would the hon. Lady recognise that her views are not necessarily representative of all bodies concerned? I have here a document produced by a group secretary, which says, above all, that the degree of success will be considerably influenced by the speed with which this can be translated. It is vitally important to the people affected; people are involved with emotional feelings as they face an uncertain future. Does the hon. Lady wish to prolong uncertainty?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the Government's intention. It is the Government who say April, 1974. I am only saying that the provision of the time for consultation with the public is totally disproportionate.
On another crucial point, while still talking about this consultative aspect, the document is almost hopelessly vague on certain crucial issues. We do not know from the document, for instance, whether the Secretary of State will appoint all the members of the area health authorities. He says that he will appoint all members of regional health authorities, but when it comes to the area authorities the document is very ambivalent indeed. I am informed that the Secretary of State said at a Press conference that appointments would rest in his hands, but that is not what the document said. What it says is that local authorities will appoint some members and that the professions will appoint some members, but there is no mention of by what method they will do it. For example, if they put forward ten members when the Secretary of State only has three places, who will choose? The document is silent on this point, which is of central importance.
How will the Secretary of State select the representatives of the professions? What does he define as "professions"? Are the professions supplementary to medicine to be regarded as professions? Are the health service workers outside medicine to be regarded as within the ambit of the professions? We do not know because the document does not tell us. In this situation it is not surprising that in a leading article today, the Birmingham Post referring to the shortage of time for consultation and the vagueness of the document, says:
All these signs are being interpreted as an indication that the Government has made up its mind…
my hon. Friends will bear this out; we hear time and again that the Government have made up their mind in advance of legislation—
… and legislation will follow predetermined lines. Somewhere the fact that this is a service for people who are ill appears to have been overlooked. The Government is not unifying the service. It is creating only resentment and despair.
I turn to the major criticisms of the substance of the document. I have dealt, I hope relatively briefly, with the problems of consultation. The first of these


criticisms is that the document seizes upon a managerial model which to many of us seems inappropriate to what ought to be a personal and humane service. It uses such phrases as
… the maximum delegation downwards matched by accountability upwards".
But this is much more about management than about accountability. I shall come to that shortly. It muddles the question of who is meant to manage the service, whether it should be officers of the service, who presumbaly should be attracted by their management opportunities, or the members of the authorities, whose job, it seemed to us, was to protect the interests of the public in the National Health Service. It sets up a powerful centralised regional structure, which has not worked too well in the past, and therefore breaks down the responsibilities of the area health authorities. Without the opinion of the membership of the health authorities, it is utterly unsatisfactory.
My right hon. Friend said in the same debate on the second Green Paper that he accepted that in any reorganisation of the health service there must be more and not less local participation. That is the view of many of us. But in this Consultative Document, members elected by local authorities directly and members elected by the professions disappear completely in the interests of the appointments made by the Secretary of State. It is not surprising that the General Medical Services Committee of the B.M.A. has, in the last few days, announced its strong opposition to the disappearance of elected professional representation.
What the Government seem unable to grasp is that the health authorities must be seen to be and must be accountable to the public, and the only way in which they will be accountable is if the public are represented, directly represented with a constituency of their own and not one of the Secretary of State. There is strong support for this within the Conservative Party.
During that same debate on the Green Paper, Mk 2, to which I have referred, the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), then spokesman on social services for the Opposition, said:
Personally, I would prefer strengthening the public representation and also strengthening the professional representation and diminishing still further the Ministerial appointments."—

[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 1017.]
How often it seems to happen to this Government that what they have said when in Opposition, and what many people have agreed with, disappears evidently under the pressure of Departmental views of one kind or another.
In addition, to that, the document does not tell us what is to be the structure of the professional advisory committees. We are told that they are to be powerful, but not who is to be on them. I ask the Secretary of State whether he is proposing that these advisory committees shall include as I have already said about the membership of health authorities, all sectors of the staffing of the Health Service, as has been requested time and again. Will the Secretary of State obey the practice recommended by his Government and set up a consultative committee in all hospitals with more than 250 employees, as laid down in the Code of Industrial Relations Practice, in Recommendation No. 7? If he is going to do that, there is not a whisper of it in the document, which is strange because this is what the Government recommend to private enterprise but will not carry out the activity themselves.
When it comes to area health authorities, which have already been downgraded, what guarantee can the Secretary of State give that busy chairmen of social service committees on local authorities, whose participation is crucial if we are to bring about this link between the two stages, will better serve the authorities, downgraded as those authorities have become? Can the Secretary of State reply to the question about whether and how the National Health Service is to serve the patient. Under the Green Paper, Mk 2, my right hon. Friend put forward two proposals. They were criticised—he will accept this—as not going far enough. One of these I have already mentioned; that was the one-third representation of local authorities on the area health authorities which had power under that proposal.
My right hon. Friend also recommended district committees part of whose members would be drawn from the community and which would have functions governing the day-to-day management of hospitals. All that has changed. The district committees have disappeared. The local authority direct representation


has disappeared. Who is to protect the patient in this situation?
The Secretary of State has produced an answer. The answer is called a community health council. This is the strangest bunch of administrative eunuchs that any Department has yet foisted upon the House—a kind of seraglio of the Secretary of State of utterly useless and emasculated bodies which have no powers. I am sorry—they can visit hospitals. How nice for them. So can most of us. They can, if they wish, produce an annual report, but nobody will read the annual report because the community health councils have no power to effect anything at all. They are to be appointed, just to ensure that they are totally powerless, by the area health authorities.
We on these benches know already that a really difficult member of a regional hospital board does not last long. In Birmingham two of the best and most difficult members have not lasted long. So if people are appointed from on top downwards one almost invariably ensures that the voice which represents the difficult one, the voice which represents the person who wants changes, the voice that is prepared to take on vested interests, is the voice that will never be heard, because it will not be appointed to these bodies. There is no guarantee in this document that we will ever see such people on these bodies.
I want quickly to mention one or two other problems which we think are very serious. We recognise that the Secretary of State has to maintain the independent contracting status of the general practitioners. We recognise how strongly they feel about it. We are sorry that, instead of making that independent contracting committee a special committee of the area health authority, the Secretary of State has seen fit to divide it off almost completely as the present arrangements indicate.
We are sorry, too, that the control over the capital development of the general practitioner service, including such things as the development of health centres and of group practices, is to rest with regional hospital authorities on which there may not be one family doctor represented. At least, we have no guarantee, that one will be there.
As I have already said, there is every reason to believe that the regional health authorities will continue to be hospital-dominated, dominated perhaps above all by senior members of the consultancy profession. We are very fearful that the general practitioner will be even more overlooked in this structure than he is in the existing one. This is the heart and centre of the service, and without that heart and centre the service could very rapidly deteriorate into something which was not primarily concerned with the patient.
I end with a few direct questions. Can the Secretary of State throw more light on the future of the community physician, because already in all too many areas community physicians are either hard to recruit or are leaving their jobs because they are not certain what the future offers them?
Can the Secretary of State say more about the very unsatisfactory position in London where there are four regional hospital boards and, at present, no effective machinery for consultation among them? Can he say what will be the boundaries between the local authorities and the area health authorities in London?
Will the Secretary of State say more about the school medical service? There is deep concern about what appears to be the first act in the disappearance of the school medical service, which still, and perhaps even more now that the welfare education services are being run down, plays a very crucial part in identifying handicap in children at a very early age.
Will the Secretary of State say why there is no reference to an occupational health service, although the time is ripe, and over-ripe, for doing something about this? Will he say why nothing is said about an Ombudsman—a Parliamentary Commissioner—for health, whom we believe to be an essential safeguard especially now that the representation of the consumer has been so much weakened?
Finally, will the Secretary of State agree that the Consultative Document on the reorganisation of the National Health Service offers a reorganisation which is inadequate and a consultation which is a travesty, and, consequently, that it is time that the document was withdrawn?

4.25 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I wish to express gratitude to the Opposition for choosing the subject today. The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has been very helpful in exposing a number of the comments and criticisms that can be made of the document that the Government published recently.
It will be common ground between us that a debate like this should include a heartfelt tribute from the Minister who for the moment happens to have responsibility to the very large number of staff who serve the health of the public in the National Health Service and in the related local authority personal social services.
I am desperately aware of how relatively easy it is to talk and how extremely demanding it is actually to provide the services on the ground in the community, in the family practitioner service, in the domiciliary service, and in hospitals of all sorts. I therefore start my speech today with something that I know that no one in the House will disagree with—that tribute to the service.
I think I should next express a few words of apology. I think that the hon. Lady's criticism—a criticism which I know will be repeated from both sides of the House—about the distribution of the Consultative Document contained a fair point. Had I my time again, I would have broadcast this Consultative Document far more widely and made it more easy for all concerned to get a sight of it. However, I am satisfied now that everybody who wants to see it and who needs to see it has seen it, but I confess that perhaps I should have made it easier still.
I am being attacked by the hon. Lady for not giving more time for consultation. To some extent the Government's decision about the timing for the reform of local government controls the time when we must have the restructured Health Service in operation. It is true that this Consultative Document proposes a period of under three months for consultation. But, after all, it is the third document on the subject. The last Government presented two Green Papers, and my Department, big though it is, is practically

bulging with comments on those papers. We have a fair amount of knowledge of what the relevant interests think is right.
It is true that the differences in strategy proposed make it desirable to consult extensively again, and I shall certainly do my very best to prolong the period of consultation. Though this document is not Green, it has very green edges. I shall take this debate and the consultation with all those concerned very seriously.
It is common ground that the service to the public depends on the co-operation of large numbers of health and social service teams in local authorities and in health authorities. Our proposals for the new National Health Service offer a great, and indeed a new, opportunity for a partnership with local authorities—between the new health authorities and what will then be the new local authorities—over the whole range of services.
Making the boundaries of the health authorities coterminous with those of the local authorities responsible for social services will mean that for the first time in Britain two public authorities, and only two, providing closely related services will be working side by side looking after the same area and the same community. Their members and their staffs should share the same loyalties to that community. I emphasise that the regional and area health authorities will be completely new bodies. There is no question of the community services swallowing up the hospitals or, as is more commonly surmised, of the hospitals taking over the community and family practitioner services.
I stress that the new health authorities need to be so composed as to take a wide and unbiased view of their services, including the importance of preventive health measures. Local authorities will have their own members on the area health authorities. There will be the closest possible working links between the two bodies. Local authorities, therefore, will have a direct say both in the actual running of the health services and in local initiatives for health service development and investment programmes which interact closely with their own.
Local authorities will be able to draw on the area health authorities for medical,


nursing, dental and other health service support and advice. Similarly, area health authorities will turn to local authorities for support and help in the social work field, and probably in other fields as well.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: What will be the financial arrangements between the area health authority and the local authority? Will money pass between them for services?

Sir K. Joseph: No, it is not proposed that money should pass between them. Inasmuch as responsibilities which are now the local authority's will be transferred to the area health authority, there will need to be an adjustment of general grant.
Because the link—this is the very essence of the strategy which, I believe, we share with the last Government—with the local authority and the coterminous boundaries will be at area level, it will be the area which will be the operating unit. The chairmen of the areas will be appointed by the Secretary of State. There will be some members appointed by the coterminous local authority. There will be some members—probably three—appointed from among medical and nursing people. These appointments, and others, which will include a university member and, where there is a teaching hospital, someone on the teaching side, will be by the regional health authority after consultation with the interests concerned. There will be strong professional advisory machinery.
I had better make clear at this stage, in answer to the hon. Lady, that the area health authority will be allocated its budget by the regional health authority but will have, within that budget, and subject to its general strategy being agreed by the region, disposal of resources for such activities as health centres.

Mr. John Gorst: Should an area authority find itself in dispute on the budget allocated to it by the regional authority, will any appeal be possible over and above the regional authority, or will the area authority have to take complete instruction from the region?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to give any impression at all of an appeal procedure. But let us look at the realities.
The regions are responsible for allocating the taxpayers' money. That is categoric. But the area health authorities will be led by chairmen appointed by the Secretary of State. If an area is consistently dissatisfied with its treatment by the region, the Secretary of State will not easily be able to find an adequate chairman for that area. There will, however, be no appeal system against the region.
The principal criticism of the proposed membership of the key area health authorities is that the Government have chosen to put a management emphasis on the area health authority membership, and I wish to take this opportunity to spell out why this is perfectly consistent and, indeed, is indispensable for a humane and effective service to the public.
It is common ground that there are two important functions in an adequate service to the public: on the one hand, the taking of the right decisions and the carrying of them through, and, on the other hand, the need for a system by which the community's reactions to those decisions and the carrying of them through may be effectively ventilated.
The previous Government chose, with full explanation, to embody those two functions in the same management structure at both the area and, in their proposals, the district level. I wish to emphasise what may not be clear to all hon. Members. The unified National Health Service will be a huge and immensely complex enterprise bringing together what are now separately administered branches with their own distinct traditions and methods of working. The area and, for that matter, the regional authorities must be composed of chairmen and members with the capacity to assess, on the basis of expert professional advice, the need for health services of all kinds within their areas, to set targets and objectives, and to ensure that corrective action is taken where those targets and objectives are not being met.
The chairmen and members must see the health services not primarily in terms of their component parts—the hospitals, the family practitioner services, the community services—but comprehensively as promoting total health plans. They must, moreover, see them in the still wider context of services co-ordinated with those provided in the community by the local authorities.
These tasks will call for high qualities of leadership, persuasion, energy and drive, so that the professional people responsible for providing services are encouraged and enabled to realise the authorities' objectives. These are the essential qualities of management, and without them—without leadership, persuasion, energy and drive, all geared to the professional advice—we shall again have in the future, as we have now, very uneven services to the public.

Mr. Richard Crossman: How do the management qualities which the right hon. Gentleman has listed differ from the qualities required of an education committee of a local authority managing something just as costly; that is, the school education service, surveying it and seeing that it is well run? Is there something special about health which requires more management than is required, for instance, in school education?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not pose as an expert on the education system, but, as I understand it, within schools or as between schools there are many fewer different armies to co-ordinate than there are in the health and personal social services. We have here a long list, from the home helps, the social workers, the chiropodists, the bath attendants—all the array of those employed in the personal social services on the local authority front—right through the domiciliary health workers, the midwives, the health visitors, the district nurses, the family practitioners, the dentists, the chemists, the oculists, all the staff in the hospitals, the ambulance services, and so on. They all need co-ordinating one with another, and with the voluntary services. It is, I believe, a far more complicated matter than it is, with all respect, in the education service.
I come now to the second limb which is required for the protection of the public, that is, the method of ventilating the consumers' reactions. For this purpose, the Government have proposed the community health council. On this, as on the other contents of the document, we are very much open to suggestions.
The House may be amused to know that my notes contain the three phrases, "Not mute", "Not shrill", and "Not a eunuch". The hon. Lady and I have

both thought of the same possibility. She accuses the community health councils of inevitably being eunuchs. I believe that, as a result of the proposals I shall now explain, they will be effective.
First, they will be appointed for each district; areas that have two, three or four districts will have as many community health councils. Second, they will have access, accommodation for meetings, and facilities for producing a report. We all know that health authorities and the like are very vulnerable to well-directed—not shrill—public criticism by those in receipt of the services.
It is proposed in the Consultative Document that the members of the community health councils shall be appointed by the area health authority. I can see that that may not be the best answer. Perhaps the right answer is to have some of the members appointed by the area health authority, after consultation with various local interests, with the remainder recruited by different methods. For instance, it might be possible—I am only throwing out suggestions—that the local authority, whether the district in the provincial counties or the metropolitan district, should appoint some of the members of the community health council. Then it would surely be sensible to turn to voluntary organisations for some appointments, and particularly to consumer organisations.
It is very dangerous for any Secretary of State to embark upon a list of such organisations, because inevitably he misses some out. But to give the House some idea of what I have in mind I have a list of organisations, some of which might be approached for nominations for membership of the community health council in particular cases: the National Association for Mental Health, the Spastics Society, local councils of social service, the National Association for the Welfare of Old People, the National Association for the Children in Hospital, the Patients Association, the National Association for Mentally Handicapped Children, the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance Association, the W.R.V.S., some of the youth organisations, and such bodies as the Women's Institutes, the Townswomen's Guilds, the


Royal British Legion and others whose activities range beyond the health and personal social services. The House will see that we are determined to make the councils effective representatives of consumer interests, which, if they put their criticism responsibly, the area health authority will be very ready to heed.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow Kelvingrove) rose—

Sir K. Joseph: I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. This is a short debate, and I have been speaking for a long time.
I turn to the regional tier. The Labour Government decided at first to do without a regional tier and then, I think in the second Green Paper, introduced a regional council. The result of doing without a regional tier is to centralise the service much more than if a regional tier exists, because inevitably the management flows right out from the ministerial headquarters to 80 or so area health authorities, resulting, it seems to me, in a very dangerous delay in all decisions.
The regions, whose members will be appointed by the Secretary of State will be responsible for the general planning in each region, the allocation of resources, the planning of special services and the planning of facilities for postgraduate medical education. They will continue to programme—I should say that they will programme—plan and execute the large building projects. I deliberately withdrew the word "continue" because they will be regional health authorities, not regional hospital boards. It is all too easy to make that mistake, and even I occasionally still slip into it. They are regional health authorities, which will be geared to taking a much wider perspective of health and welfare than the regional boards that have been hospital-based.
They will have to widen their advisory services—here I am meeting a point made by the hon. Lady—to include community and family practitioner advice, to make sure that they in their turn can monitor the area's performance of its family practitioner and community health functions.
The teaching hospitals will be integrated in the regional and area system. I am discussing with the boards of governors ways to do that with the optimum benefit to the interests of all, including teaching and research.
In the interests of brevity, I am answering only some of the hon. Lady's questions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will try to deal with the remainder.
We are in the midst of discussions with the Department of Education and Science on the School Medical Service.
There was much criticism of the Government's decision on referring a number of difficult questions to working groups. But it would not have been practicable to set up working groups on such difficult issues as the mechanism for collaboration between local authorities and area health authorities on the one hand, or the system of management at area and district level, on the other, without first producing a strategy. Only after producing a strategy could we consult and set up the working groups.
Here I must answer the criticism that we are going too fast. We need to balance two factors. A period of transition is one of great uncertainty for the staff involved, and the shorter we can make it the better. On the other hand, we must make a reality of consultation. I hope that the timetable we are to follow will produce the optimum answer on both.
It may not be practicable to get the main themes out of the working groups, which include a working group on London, in time for the White Paper. But that will not debar full consultation on the themes at the appropriate time with, amongst others, the staff and professional interests.
It is important that we should make preparations for the change-over date. There are two forms of preparation in which the House will be interested. We have already had the interim Hunter Report on community physicians, on the basis of which we are embarking as soon as possible on the arranging of seminars and courses for widening the range of knowledge and management skill of hospital, community and administrative specialists to match the wider responsibilities of the new area health authorities.
The second preparation which we must make is for the appointment of a staff commission so that all the staff may be satisfied that their interests will be safeguarded during the transitional period.
I should not like to finish even a short speech like this, on the new service as we see it, without emphasising once again that this country will never be able to afford to look after the health and welfare of the public entirely by paid service. The first line of defence must be the family, and the second line must be voluntary bodies. It is in support of the family and voluntary bodies that the new health authorities and the new local authorities will be deploying their health and social service functions.
After a year with the privilege of my present responsibilities and with full recognition of the gaps in the services and all that still has to be done, I repeat that we have in this country potentially the finest health and social service in the world. The bringing together within the same boundaries of reformed health authorities and reformed local authorities in a new partnership will make that potential come much nearer to reality.

Mr. Gorst: There was a passing reference to the position of teaching hospitals. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is well aware that 40 per cent. or more of doctors and dentists are training in teaching hospitals in the London area. Can he assure us that he has an open mind about the arrangements for London teaching hospitals and that he will be holding more consultations about this aspect of the document?

Sir K. Joseph: Within the strategy I have described, the answer is "Yes". I do not think I need repeat my peroration. I believe that this document will produce a better service for the public.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crossman: Anyone who has been a Minister and has prepared a draft plan must be very careful not to have author's pride, especially when we are dealing with the National Health Service. Looking back, one of the things which I very much regret is that we did not establish a Royal Commission parallel to the Commission on local government to do the initial

spade work and research in the health service. When we got to work we lacked the strength of the authority of people from outside who would work for a couple of years, and it all had to be done by ourselves. I am aware that many people from outside did work, but anybody can be wrong about this matter because one of the most difficult jobs is to get it right.
We agree on the virtues and the faults, and we must be sure that we preserve the virtues and eliminate the faults. We all agree that the greatest virtue of the health service is the general practitioner service. In a way, it is the least organised part. It seems to run on its own with the minimum of interference from anyone else. I am deeply critical of the community services, but when we compare them and what we do for the old people by way of meals on wheels, and so on, with the situation in other countries, they are not so bad. Such personal services are performed with great human feeling. The only trouble is that they lack money.; they are appallingly under-financed.
The same is true of the general practitioner service. It is a wonderful service, but much more money should be spent on it. There should have been a bigger campaign for health centres. It is not a question of saying, "These are fundamentally the wrong services and we will change them." On the contrary, I am deeply convinced that, apart from the hospitals, about which I have reservations, we are on the right lines.
I come to the central flaw. There is a split between the local authority service and the health service. One is paid for out of rates; the other is paid for out of taxation. There is a hopeless division between the community services and the medical services, inevitably resulting in hospital domination, on the one side, and either inadequate funds or haphazardness, on the other, because it depends on what the local authority will spend. Whether a service achieves anything worth while is a matter of pot luck in any local authority because there is extremely weak central control over the local authority community services.
The second virtue of the hospitals is that if a person is desperately ill there is no country in the world where he will be as well looked after as he will be in this country. The service fails when a


person is not desperately ill. It is hopeless when a person has piles; it is marvellous when a person has an incurable cancer. We must look at this matter and see whether we have failed in looking after the healthy. Preventive and community services to keep people out of hospital are hopelesly under-manned and under-financed. Money has been poured into the hospital services, but even so they are short of money.
We must deal with the terrible problem of the gap between the local authorities and the health service. It is easier for me to say this now that I am not in office but there is, in reason, no case for saying that the new great local authorities, with very extensive powers, should not take over the health service. That would be infinitely more logical. It would have solved at one stroke the appalling division between the local authorities and the health service. There would have been proper democratic representation we know why it is not being done—because the medical profession vetoes common-sense in this respect—

Sir K. Joseph: And there are financial reasons.

Mr. Crossman: I was about to say that the second reason is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow the new local authorities sufficient taxes to carry the cost of education and health, the two most costly locally-financed services. To carry the cost of them would mean a major change in the fiscal system by which local authorities were given almost a prior claim on taxes. As Hedley Marshall showed recently in his pamphlet, there would have to be a local income tax to enable them to raise the money. If there was any sense in the world, the health service would come under the new local authorities, with their extensive new powers and responsibilities.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the social services provided by the local authority will be only 10 per cent. of the total financially and staff-wise, whereas the hospital services and general health services are 90 per cent.? Therefore, he would be fitting the tail to the dog and asking the tail to take over the dog.

Mr. Crossman: I would not be fitting any tail to any dog. In creating the new

local authorities, we should have decided to transfer to them a major social service which had been taken over by Aneurin Bevan. There would have been a reallocation of powers as between central and local government. For people who believe in decentralisation, this would have been a great opportunity to show confidence in local government. Theree is nothing new in what I am saying. I accept that it could not be done because of the medical veto and the inability of any Government to raise taxation by the necessary amount in the next two or three years.
Whatever we do will be a compromise, which is not very satisfactory. The worst fault recorded by the public—and it has been confirmed by every comment made on the first and second Green Papers—is the insensitivity of the Health Service to local feeling and patient criticism, the remoteness of the service, its bureaucratic nature, its refusal to understand local needs, the setting up of hospitals with no transport to them, the creation of great marble palaces and the closing down of well-loved small hospitals, and the constant disregard of patients' personal feelings for the sake of the convenience of the consultant.
Every report has concentrated on the need to bring about local participation. I felt that this was a directive for me—that whatever we did we had to make the system less bureaucratic. The centre of the bureaucracy was not at the Elephant and Castle. That is too gentle and kind a place to be bureaucratic. I have never seen more nice people doing very little very well, but they were certainly not running the health service or the hospital service, because the satraps round the health service—the self-appointed oligarchs supposedly appointed by us but who appoint themselves time after time—

Sir K. Joseph: I do not know what the situation was in the right hon. Gentleman's time at the Department. but I can testify that these people work extremely hard now.

Mr. Crossman: Absolutely eager beavers, but the control rests in the 14 regional hospital boards, and that is what is wrong. It is ironical. The Treasury says that the health service must be well organised and that the damn democratically elected local authorities waste money


and there must be people responsible to the Minister; and yet the Minister knows as well as I do that the control exercised by the Secretary of State for Education and Science is infinitely closer and more effective over the costs of local authority education than the control which he or I could ever exercise over these confounded tax masters. Here we dole out £60 million or £70 million and say, "Spend it as you damn well like" and we know that there is no real control, and the Treasury has not seemed to grasp the fact that because we appoint somebody that is not the end of the matter. We can appoint whom we like, but we cannot get rid of him. We are not allowed to, for one thing. Certainly it is all against the game. The fact is that Ministers come and go but those people stay. The area of effective control is in the regional centres, the regional hospital boards, and they can afford to say what they like and the Minister can do nothing about it, nor can anybody else—except when the odd, awkward woman appears on a board and makes some protest to the chairman. I got a few protesters on the boards. I thought they would add a little pepper to the spices and other condiments. I did not think my successor would be so surly as not to keep them or make sure that they would not have power.
What did we do? We said to ourselves that the central aim must be to strengthen control at the top, to strengthen control at the bottom, and to thin out in the middle—to castrate the satraps, which is where the centres of obnoxious power lay. What does the right hon. Gentleman do? He weakens the top, weakens the bottom, and inspissates the centre with bureaucracy. I never saw such a scheme. They are given a budget, and they allocate the budget to the areas, and the areas divide it up among the districts. There could not be a better method of getting paper wasted.
It is a scheme for people all busy planning. They are appointed to be efficient managers—real busybodies. It is not going to make things easy. They are the sort of people who say of any proposal, "We shall have to examine it". They are not like housewives who represent the public; these managers will say, "We are not going to represent the public. They are a damned nuisance. We are going to have no nonsense about

that, We are real managers." In this way, the Health Service will have every single one of its worst characteristics strengthened. What happiness there must have been among the hospital boards when I disappeared. What cheers there must have been.
The Secretary of State, for whose integrity I have the highest regard, is sometimes in his impetuousity a bit naïve, and he makes a little mistake in thinking of regional boards as local health authorities. There will be 14 boards—is it not extraordinary?—and 14 lots of architects doing the building of the service, and are they not going to be the same architects of the same old cadre? There were before 14 planning regions. I was at the Department a little longer than the right hon. Gentleman has been, and I know the names of those authorities already and the names of all the key officials and who they will be, because they are there already. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the buildings will be changed? Of course they will not be. Will it look very different? It will be the same thing with a little added to it, but it will be the same imperceptive bureaucratic machine with a lot of civil servants as well as hospital people. That is what it will be. The right hon. Gentleman says that his is the originating, activating Department, but the regions will do the monitoring of the budgeting and will have effective management and monitoring powers in each area, and a lot of paper will be spent on that, too. They will be the same groups, if I know anything about it, and so we shall have the same set-up given different names and with a few additional powers. There will be the regional hospital boards in. another form. The powers are concentrated where they ought not to be.
I wanted to make sure that people in the community services shared in the work, people who cared more about the community services, and I wanted to make sure that the money was there and that there would be people with a vested interest in community services as against the hospitals.

Sir K. Joseph: Does it not follow that the right hon. Gentleman's Department would have had to distribute all the money and would have had to have large regional units of civil servants?

Mr. Crossman: That is exactly what they tried to tell me: I recognise the speech the right hon. Gentleman has made. It is too late now to tell him what he should have said back, but what he should have said was, "Go across to Curzon Street". There there are a lot of civil servants who run an education budget for 80 or 90 local authorities, and they manage it well. Of course, it is true that there is not the same tradition of effective control in the Health Service as there is in the Department of Education, but if it can be done there I believe that by a certain circulation of talents and a pushing across the river of certain people, like results would be obtained. People could be taken from the Department of Education. We could have our organisation, with our budgeting, as we did for hospital building. We borrowed ideas from the Department of Education and we lifted people from there and brought them over. That sort of thing has always been done in Government. If there is a Ministry overseeing a budget of 80 local authorities it is ridiculous to say that it could not be done elsewhere. There is no great difficulty about it.
Perhaps the Treasury does not like it because it is new, but I would have had more effective central control, central control of the budgeting, and I would have had communication between me and the areas. I would have had weak regions and direct contact with the areas so that the areas would feel they could come straight to the Minister, and feel that they mattered. They could have come straight to me, as the local authorities go straight to the Secretary of State in Curzon Street. The areas would have been powerful in that way.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend has made comparisons with the Department of Education and Science. Is he aware that many people in education services think that the Department is a complete failure and that if it completely disappeared no one would notice?

Mr. Crossman: That shows how dangerous it is to comment on something which one does not know too much about. But I had been asked whether it was possible to exert budgetary control over 80 local authorities. I was pointing out that it is possible, and that it has

been done for education. Perhaps it is the job of the units to do it.
It is my central anxiety, Secretary of State, that you are maintaining basically the present structure, thickening it and extending its powers. When you should have destroyed that area, it is the area you are strengthening. I say in all seriousness that that is a terribly bad thing to do. You made a speech when you went round the other day to which I was very sympathetic.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The Chair has not been going round.

Mr. Crossman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It shows how long I have been absent from the House.
But the Secretary of State made an excellent speech on the subject of hospital building. He expressed courageous anxieties about these white palaces and huge centralised hospitals. But these are exactly the sort of things which the institutions he is setting up—the management men—will adore. That is what they want—bigger, better, more bureaucratic-ally administered places. They want to get rid of all the small-scale hospitals which are close to people and are what people like, and get really efficient, business-like places. We shall get high-rise hospitals more and more—a paradise for business men and architects.
I went into the Department, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did, believing that the job was to go in not as manager but as a representative of the people. I believed that I was there to ensure that the managers remembered the people. There is a basic flaw in the system. The job of the hospital management committee or the regional hospital board or the health committee is not to manage. That is done by the officials. It is the officials who should be the efficient managers. The people over them ought not to be managers.
There is a horrifying sentence in the Consultative Document:
The authorities will be kept small and management ability will be the main criterion for the selection of members.
When I went round the National Health Service, who did I find were really effective on these boards? They were a lot of housewives, women who knew where


the shoe pinched and who had time to go round and see people and to know what the patients were thinking. Will these top-level business men have the time or the interest to go into all these things? No. They are exactly the sort of people who should either be full-time officials or not be on the boards at all. The boards ought to be representatives of human beings, of patients, of fathers and mothers—there to see to it that the managers are kept in control and tamed, made to serve the public and to make the buildings places in which people can live instead of places where people feel like dying.' That must be the aim.
If the right hon. Gentleman has his way, if he disregards the strong criticisms by the county councils and many other people, and goes on with this terrible policy of inspissating the middle bureaucracy, he will destroy the best things in the National Health Service and strengthen the worst things in it.

5.14 p.m.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: I shall not take up many of the points which were made by the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) because I want to be brief, but following such a stimulating and superficially persuasive contribution from the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), I cannot resist saying that he is putting forward a case in defence, I suppose, of a rather dormant baby of his the second of the Green Papers. One of the features of the last few months and of the last few weeks in particular has been the audible sigh of relief at the reception of the Consultative Document and the realisation—and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this—that it was truly a Consultative Document, that it was an action document. That was unlike the previous two Green Papers, valuable as they were, for they led to no action at all.
Contrary to what has been said, I think that one of the helpful things about this is knowing that we are aiming towards a definite date when there will be a link-up in the timing of the National Health Service changes and the local authority changes.
Delightful as were the criticisms of the right hon. Member for Coventry East about inspissation, along with his advocacy

of putting difficult women on committees and of the admirable features of housewives, the feature which is at fault at the moment, as all of us in the National Health Service know, is the lack of modern efficient management. This is a highly complicated service. At the patient's end, it is a highly personal and individual activity, but to run such a very complex service one must have people who understand complex business methods.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: There is quite a difference between business administrators and medical managers. We want medical managers to be paid officials, and we do not want business administrators to be on the various new councils, regional health authorities or local area health authorities.

Dr. Vaughan: I am discussing the lack of modern business methods among officials who have to run the service. Here we have an idea which I am sure the medical profession would not want to argue about. There are some very good medical administrators, and I hope that there will always be a place for them. But what is needed is top level general administrators, whether they come from the medical side or from a career structure amongst administrators in general. This is a very important point.
I had hoped that we would be able to do away with the regional boards—regional authorities, if you like. If there is one thing which is at fault at the moment, it is the regional administration. Anyone who deals with regional administration—particularly people like engineers, architects and hospital suppliers—will say that it is almost impossible to get a decision quickly.

Mr. Crossman: Hear, hear. They should be made stronger.

Dr. Vaughan: I suggest that we want to place administration in fewer people's hands. Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend is right and that what is needed is a management trained person at regional level, with a committee of experts to advise him. We want a single person or a small group of people who can deal effectively with administration and make decisions on the spot. I would like to pursue this aspect very strongly. I do not think


that they need necessarily be medical people. I think the majority of the medical profession would be only too glad to give up having to do administration and to be able to concentrate much more on their job—the practice of medicine.
There are two small areas to which I hope more thought will be given. One is a plea for the future of health visitors to be looked at more carefully. There is enormous anxiety among health visitors. They are highly trained and a valuable part of the community, but they fear their rôle will be lost in the new structure. Then there is the peculiar position in London, particularly with the teaching hospitals. Here, I suppose, I have a personal bias and a vested interest. I accept entirely the need for a community medical service; in fact, this is one of the essentials at local level; and I had thought that the teaching hospitals would have to be integrated into area teaching hospital boards. But the worry is that there will be a clash in those areas between the need for up-grading parts of the community medical service and the need for maintaining a high level of teaching and research. I was very sorry to hear the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) that there will be no system of appeal for a teaching hospital which finds it has to lower its standards because another part of the community needs extra funds from the regional board.
There are 12 teaching hospitals in London, and this is a peculiar situation. They are centres of excellence, they have an international reputation and we depend upon them for developing the highest levels of our training and teaching. We also have the smaller specialist hospitals. We had the example recently of Queen Charlotte's, a specialist teaching hospital which is in danger of losing its teaching function because area needs do not justify the continuation of the number of its beds. I am afraid that this danger will increase. The danger is of letting the community service side dictate the teaching hospital end. There are problems in London about geographically fitting together the teaching hospital areas and the local authority areas, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this aspect very carefully.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the National Union of Public Employees, which recruits a considerable number of members from inside the National Health Service. Some of the comments which I shall make will reflect the union's viewpoint, and it is right that the union's views should be taken note of by the Secretary of State when he brings forward the proposed White Paper. I am a little confused about whether this white Consultative Document is a Green Paper with white edges or a White Paper with green edges, but it is not a consultative document in the truest sense of the word. It has already been admitted by the Secretary of State that the document was not available to those who needed it.
Comments were made at a meeting of the Huddersfield Executive Council held on 11th June which were reported in the Huddersfield Examine on 12th June under the heading:
'Travesty of democracy ' over new plans for Health Service
Complaint was made that copies of the document had been officially supplied to only certain national organisations and professional bodies in the Health Service.
Mr F. Gill said that if consulation on the document was wanted there should be an opportunity for all concerned with the Health Service to express their views.
Was the document, he wondered, intended to have a wide circulation? He thought that to issue it in the way it had been was a travesty of democracy.
The Chairman, Mr. O. Sumerville, said he agreed with those views.
The Department certainly should have made the document available to as many organisations as possible. I am glad that the Secretary of State admitted the error of his ways, and I hope that, in future, note will be taken of the views of organisations.
I do not think anyone denies that the National Health Service is in need of reform. Since it has been nearly 25 years in operation, a case can be made for looking at the structure of the health service to see what can be done to improve it, but I doubt whether the proposals in the Consultative Document will do anything to make the health service a more democratic organisation. There is not much democracy in the service at present, but under the proposals in the


consultative document there will be even less.
The Royal Commission on Local Government suggested that the National Health Service should be brought within the scope of a reformed local government system. My trade union and I were in favour of that idea because we thought that local authority control would give a better chance of establishing closer relationships between the health service and the personal social services, and that that, in turn, would lead to a much greater degree of democracy and democratic control in the health service.
That view was rejected by the Labour Government some years ago, not just because of the doctors—and I agree that they were an obstacle—but also on the grounds of finance. As a Green Paper on local government finance is to be published fairly soon, this will give an opportunity for the Government to consider the possibility of involving local authorities in the health service.
There is much that I could say about the Consultative Document, but I will confine myself to trying to persuade the Government to create a more democratic system in the health service. I doubt whether I shall be successful, because the Government are hell bent on the concept of managerial efficiency and professional expertise, and are not concerned with the wider issue of seeking to ensure that the people who work inside the health service should have a say in the running of it. The Secretary of State made a virtue of the Health Service being so complicated that it needed more efficient management and professional expertise. This is true to a point, but the greater the diversity of the service the greater is the argument for representation on it of all sections of the Health Service to provide a pool of knowledge.
I sincerely hope that this preoccupation which manifests itself time and again in the Consultative Document will not debar the ancillary workers from taking part in the running of the service. Without ancillary workers, the hospital service would collapse, and they are entitled to a say in the running of the service in any new structure that is created. I doubt whether the proposals in the Consultative Document take much account of this important point.
The proposed composition of the new authorities holds out little hope for any participation by those who work in the service. The regional authorities will be entirely composed of members and chairmen appointed by the Secretary of State, and the area authorities will be composed of members appointed by the local authorities, the universities and the regional authorities. So a great opportunity to introduce more democracy into the health service has been missed.
The document puts more power into the hands of the Secretary of State; it concentrates too much power of patronage in his hands. The end result is likely to be a self-perpetuating oligarchy, which is just what we should resist in seeking to reform the service. The National Union of Public Employees has always contended that any administrative restructuring of the service must make adequate provision for extending democratic control.
The second Green Paper, which we debated in the House on 23rd March, 1970, recommended that one-third of the area authority membership should be appointed by doctors, nurses and dentists, one-third by the local authorities—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being presen—

Mr. Lomas: I hope I may now be allowed to continue. I cannot understand the mentality of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper), in calling a count, unless they do not want to discuss the important subject of the National Health Service. It is ridiculous to interrupt a speech and waste the time of the House in that way; though I have seen the hon. Member concerned behave in a similar way before and I suppose we should forgive him his sins.
When we debated the second Green Paper on 23rd March last year, it was then said that one-third of the area authority members should be appointed by doctors, dentists and nurses, one-third by local authorities and one-third by the Secretary of State. That did not go far enough. It did not include people below the rank of nurse, such as the ancillary people who carry out a great deal of the


work in the hospitals and without whose efforts the hospital service would fall. An assurance was given during the Labour Government by a former Minister, John Dunwoody—who is now no longer a Member of the House but who will be with us again—that the matter would be looked at again to see whether some means could be found to ensure that people in the Health Service were incorporated in the body of people to be appointed by the Secretary of State. That was not only my view, but it was the view of my union and of the T.U.C. These proposals were not accepted, and it was suggested that there should be additional representation for other categories of worker who could be drawn from the unions represented on the staff side of the Whitley Councils. This is one way of making the service more democratic.
On the other hand, the present Government seem totally to reject the representational basis proposed in the previous Green Paper, and they say, in effect, that such a basis for appointments to the area authorities would be incompatible with the principle that management ability should be the main criterion for the selection of members. We are in the Health Service dealing with human beings and with individual problems. It is therefore very important that any restructuring of the National Health Service should be used to ensure a greater degree of participation not only by those employed in the service but by those who use it. We should ensure that patients who are involved in the service should have some say in the running of it.
It should be incumbent on all hospital management committees to set up a proper consultative committee with their hospitals. At the moment this is permissive under the 1946 Act, but, in my opinion, it should be made compulsory. If such a duty is good enough for the Secretary of State for Employment it should be good enough for the Secretary of State for Social Services.
The Government should take due note of paragraph 7 of the Consultative Document of the Code of Industrial Relations Practice:
Any establishment with more than 250 employees should have a consultative committee

with an elected membership representing all sections of the establishment and sectional sub-committees where appropriate. Management should take the initiative in setting it up, in consultation as appropriate with employee representatives and trade Unions concerned.
The Secretary of State for Social Services should take a leaf out of that code of recommendations and act accordingly.
It is not use talking about democracy unless one is prepared to practise it. Community health councils are to be appointed rather than elected by those to whom they are responsible. This is a bad principle, and, indeed, this is a bad document—not so much for what it says, but for what it leaves out.
Any question of appointing a hospital ombudsman has been forgotten. No mention is made of the fact that the school medical services would be integrated, and this is a black mark against the Consultative Document. The failure to include arrangements for an occupational health service is almost criminal. Since we know that so many working days are lost through illness, surely the occupational health service should have been included. For every day lost by a strike, 100 days are lost through illness.
If we recognise the problems that beset the National Health Service we should set up an industrial training board to train people to take positions of management and responsibility. I condemn the Government for producing a document which will not bring about a democratic system and will do nothing substantial to help the service. At the same time I should like to pay tribute to the 750,000 people who work in the health service in such a devoted way. I hope that we shall see a change of heart by the Government and that this will soon bring about a more efficient, better and humane National Health Service.

5.36 p.m.

Dr. Anthony Trafford: The House will not be surprised to hear that I welcome the Consultative Document and the fact that action is to be taken on the ground that uncertainty has continued long enough. It is true that all the emphasis in the document is on management and, however good management is and however sound the structure, this does not necessarily produce a good service. Even in the most personal services in handling patients, a modicum of


efficiency is helpful, and a badly managed service can lead to difficulties.
I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man), and I enjoyed the iconoclasm that was contained in it. The only trouble was that he fired torpedoes and then left the Chamber, as though he had suddenly lost interest in the Health Service. It would be reasonable for him to have argued against the imposition between the Department and the area board of a regional tier if he had extended this argument to suggest that a different form of management should take place and that the community councillors should be strengthened and all the representative bodies placed in the middle abolished. In other words, there should be a reverse appeals procedure, and solely official direction of the service. This would be a tenable position. One of the features I find attractive in the document is that it removes the anomaly which at present exists where the people who are supposed to be responsible for administering the Service are at the same time those to whom appeals would be made. It is difficult for everybody to be judge and jury in their own cause.
Whatever reforms may do to relieve anomalies and inequities, they should not be made purely for their own sake. This is how the document and its implementation will be judged. There are four major deficiencies in the present service. These are management; maldistribution of resources; lack of flexibility; and the problem of finance. The latter has not been touched on this afternoon, and I will not pursue the matter further. The first three of these features are the ones on which the proposed reforms should have considerable effect. It was once thought easy to define health and ill-health, but in fact this is not so and there are various gradations of health. It is not easy to define the objectives towards which the N.H.S. should be aiming. It is almost impossible to distinguish in practical terms between the needs and demands of the population in health matters.
It is a well known fact that the more services that are provided the more they are taken up; in other words, demand escalates not only with supply but in excess of it. This often means that some form of rationing must be imposed, whether by some administrative means or

by long waiting lists, or whatever it may be. As the Secretary of State has said, it would be almost impossible ever to meet every demand of the public for health.
It is difficult to define the proper sphere of medicine today. At one time it was thought to be easy: one either had pneumonia or not; one either went to a doctor or did not. Today the effect of housing and of the total environment on a patient is often as of great importance as whatever appears to be his primary medical illness. In these days it is necessary to see illness not only as a personal misfortune or affliction for the person who is ill, but in its total family and social consequences. This necessary change has led to the concepts of community care. This has led to the changing rôle of the practitioner. The practitioner now often takes the view that he went to medical school to become what he calls a doctor, not a social worker, which he has been forced to become. Therefore, up to a point, he may have moved away from carrying out his preferred functions. One tends in those circumstances to see the demand for the creation of a social services department alongside and in part carrying out what are in a sense modern health functions. I agree with the hon. Member who said that he thought that an opportunity had been missed when the Social Services Act was passed, and that there is not now the possibility of combining these personal services and health into one service.
There is, however—I come to the point I mentioned about flexibility—a big deficiency of information upon which any health service administrator can act. This is best illustrated by an example given by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) when she spoke about health centres. A vast amount of attention and a certain amount of money and of drive has been devoted to the creation of the health centre as though it was the answer to the problem of community medicine. The data upon which this is predicted are extremely slender. It was always thought and argued that a health centre as a great centre of medical services would reduce the weight on hospitals, reduce the referral rate and the inpatient demand, which are the very things for which the right hon. Member for Coventry, East was asking.
The only survey which we have so far suggests that, far from that having happened, the opposite has happened and the numbers of referrals have gone up. I think that this lack of flexibility has meant that this experiment has not been able to be carried on and evaluated and, as a result, the proper decisions taken. Instead we have had to rely to a certain extent on guess work, which is not a very good basis for making long-term decisions.
I will not go into the question of hospital building, which again is a good example of how, without the proper feedback of data, the wrong buildings, built in the wrong way, designed for the wrong purposes for 1980, and taking an interminable time to build, have often been built in the wrong places.
The basis of medical function and activity inside a hospital does not apply only to the number of beds or doctors. Many people are concerned in the running of hospitals. I commend to my right hon. Friend the thought that he should increase the ancillary services greatly and reduce the number of in-patient beds.
A further example of this situation at the moment is the position of consultants. I am now talking of the bogeymen of whom the right hon. Member for Coventry, East spoke. There are 600 consultant vacancies. Yet the Department has suddenly decided to increase the number of consultant vacancies by 4 per cent. It sems curious to add numbers of vacancies when apparently people are not applying for these jobs. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Coventry, East and with my right hon. Friend that what is needed is a considerable shift of emphasis into the community so that the trend towards in-patient care and expensive hospital care is reversed.
I welcome the preservation—I suppose that is the correct word—of the regional tier. I believe that it will have a proper function. It has a function in the distribution and organisation of the rarer services that are needed. It can perform an extremely useful function, and I believe it will help to allocate properly the resources between areas. One of the possible weakneses of areas is that they could become too parochial. They have other problems, about which I am sure

other hon. Members will wish to speak. I think that the geographical drawing of the areas will be difficult. Kent is one example. It seems to me that there should be two areas there, not one.
We have not yet had defined the functions of the chief executive of the area health authorities, and his status, origin and training. We should like to hear more about that.
On the flexible response to the proper collection of data and evaluation, I am glad that the teaching hospitals are to be integrated. We have had a very moving plea from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan), which I regard as one of special pleading, for the preservation of a particular privilege which has never been justified to my knowledge. Much criticism has been published of the teaching of medicine. We have had Royal Commissions on it. We know that it was bad and that it has been inadequate. Yet the least reformed area of the Health Service to date has been the teaching hospitals. They put forward the plea of research. It is excellent to spend money on research when it is productive of anything, but has anybody ever evaluated how much it produces?
Overall, I welcome the document. I hope that these reforms will be implemented. I make the reservation which my right hon. Friend stated: that management of itself does not make a service, but it can nevertheless give the prospect of so organising the service that it can make up some of the deficiencies which have been outlined and give a potential for an improved health scheme.
I was delighted that my right hon. Friend ended his speech with a tribute to those who work in the National Health Service. Every institution, business and service can always be criticised in detail. I have worked in health services in other parts of the world and I am glad that we have our Health Service and that I have been able to work in it. Despite its defects and deficiencies, I think it does an exceptionally good job. When these reforms are implemented, I sincerely believe it can and will do an even better job.

5.48 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Everyone will welcome the intention to reorganise the National Health


Service. This possibility was catered for on at least two occasions when we were in government. But reorganisation should have a meaning. It is not a panacea per se.
I am highly suspicious of any document which lays such mighty stress upon managerial efficiency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), in a brilliant exposition of the faults and flaws in the document—I do not think anyone on either side of the House can hope to emulate his speech—beautifully pinpointed the way that the document fails to carry out any of the main ideas which we had for the reorganisation and restructuring of the Health Service. He brought us back, again and again, to the reality that the health service is about people. It is not about metaphysical abstractions; it is about flesh and blood.
I find that managerial efficiency—a term which now sends a shiver down my spine—is often a euphemism for inhuman action. Managerial efficiency can be the enemy of kindness, thoughtfulness and care. Managerial efficiency is certainly no substitute for a determination further to develop the National Health Service and to restate clearly what the objectives of the service should be, and the kind of shuffling around which the Secretary of State gave us this afternoon of the nomenclature of area health boards, as opposed to regional health boards, regional authorities, and area authorities, is not good enough.
We on this side of the House know what is meant by the "reassessment of resources and revaluation of the effectiveness of our expenditure". We know that the saving made by not giving school milk to children under seven is supposed to be linked to the building of more primary schools, but everyone knows that one does not earmark money saved that way for another purpose, and in any case it would be an infamous way of providing school accommodation. Ask any school teacher, and he will confirm that trying to educate under-nourished children is a far more difficult task than teaching in an old school.
So it is with the National Health Service. Hospital building is fine and necessary, but not at the expense of other vital aspects of the service, and certainly not as a cold, clinical substitute for compassion

and a warm humane outlook. On previous occasions in the House I have drawn attention to the relatively low rate of expenditure on the Health Service compared with the national income which the country has enjoyed, if I may use the expression advisedly, under previous Tory Administrations. Between 1950 and 1963 there was a reduction in the proportion of our national income spent on the National Health Service.
What is this all about in any case? What are we aiming at with our Health Service? I perhaps differ slightly from my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East when he criticised one aspect of the N.H.S. I think that we have a good Health Service. I do not think it is as bad in that one respect as my right hon. Friend seems to think. He is a man with tremendous authority in the field of administration of the Health Service, and who should know better than he what is needed in connection with the organisation of the Health Service?
I think we have a good health service, and here I agree with the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford). But what are we aiming at? Are we aiming simply at the curing of illness when it occurs? If so, how do we define illness? Is it merely the absence of disease? What is the underlying philosophy of the Health Service? It should be concerned with positive good health. If we live longer, are we living a better life? Are we enjoying our lives? Do we have less, or more, tension in our lives? That is what the Health Service is about. That is what we should be concerning ourselves about in our Health Service.
What about our environmental conditions? Are they conducive to good health? What are we doing about pollution of all kinds? What are we doing about the motor car, the aeroplane, our cities, and our countryside? What investigations are we conducting? Why, for example, are there twice as many tonsillectomies in Oxford as in Sheffield? What are we doing about investigating the substances in our water supply which are often implicated in cardiac disease?
I think that what is wrong with this document is that, whereas policy and objectives should determine the structure of the National Health Service, and not the other way round, what we have here


is the impression that first we fabricate an impressive and elaborate organisation, and then we try to fit into that organisation what it is to do.
The vagueness of the document is disconcerting, even alarming. What real encouragement is being given to general practitioners to end their isolation from their colleagues in hospitals and in the public Health Service? Health centres and group practice centres are far too slow in their development, and I believe that there is a great deal of scope for much less pretentious provision in this field. Smaller group practice centres could be provided by general practitioners themselves, without waiting for local authorities to provide the money for them. I did that in my own practice long before the medical profession was as well reimbused as it is now. I did that in 1954.
In that connection, the average earnings of the average general practitioner in 1969 were more than £5,500 a year.

Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Gentleman is talking about gross and not net earnings, and the general practitioner has to meet many costs out of that sum.

Dr. Miller: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to elaborate. In 1969 the average general practitioner was earning £5,500 a year. With indecent haste the Government increased that, and the position today is that he earns £6,500.

Dr. Vaughan: Gross or net?

Dr. Miller: In addition, sums are added for the provision of premises, and for his secretarial expenses. I agree that he has to meet certain expenses from the total sum, but so does everybody, and it is not a bad sum of money from which to meet his relatively small expenses. He gets twice the amount of money that is paid to the average Member of Parliament, and, without being any way nasty towards the average general practitioner, I do not think he works twice as hard as the average Member of Parliament; but I am not complaining.
I do not minimise the contribution made by the family doctor, but, as the general practitioner receives a fairly substantial income, when will he be forbidden from practising from hole-and-corner surgeries of the kind that are used

by so many members of the profession? When will we insist that the completely inadequate facilities which he provides—a dingy waiting room, lacking in washing and toilet facilities, and with no provision for the comfort or convenience of his patients—are no longer good enough for his patients? I do not think that there is anything romantic, hygienic or therapeutic about them. They lack even the minimum facilities, and it is high time, if this is the best that some members of the medical profession can provide, that we had a fully salaried Health Service in this sector.
If we are talking about restructuring and reorganisation, another matter at which we should look is the drug bill. The monthly catalogue of prescribable drugs, which is issued to every doctor, lists well over 3,000 separate, but not necessarily different, medical substances. In 1969 in England and Wales nearly 250 million prescriptions were issued, at a total cost of more than £151 million, and an average cost per prescription of 62p. In Scotland there were 28 million prescriptions, costing just under £20 million, at an average cost slightly higher, at 68p. Last year the bill rose to more than £180 million, or more than 10 per cent. of the total cost of the National Health Service, and represented a very much higher proportion than did the family doctor services, which took about 8 per cent. of the total amount spent on the service.
The high cost of the drug bill is largely due to the change in prescribing habits of the medical profession. During the first few years of National Health Service more than half the prescriptions issued were for non-proprietary medicines. Today 94 per cent. of all prescriptions fall into the proprietary drug category, the average cost of which is anything from twice to five times that of a nonproprietary preparation. This is of great advantage to the American drug industry and to some continental firms, because 50 per cent. of all drugs prescribed in this country are from firms which are American-owned, 25 per cent. from continental firms and only 25 per cent. from British firms. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) will note that there are some on this side of the House who feel that this is another aspect of the Health


Service which should be looked at from the point of view of nationalisation.
The most apt quotation that I can give from the Consultative Document is:
We are perhaps in danger of a surfeit of plans and prospectuses: there must be early decisions, so that enthusiasm for reform does not wither away.
What reforms are proposed? As I have said, the National Health Service is about people. Are we to have proper stress on the prevention of disease? Are we to have a campaign for health education for positive health? What about the needs of the aged? This is a whole field which is crying out for further action. Are we to have a real effort to conquer cardio-vascular diseases and cancer? Are we to have an occupational health service, and a full National Health Service Ombudsman and not just a hospital Ombudsman? We must have more civility towards patients by all those who supply the service.
We have very little confidence in the Tory Government's handling of our National Health Service. The Conservative Party opposed it from the very beginning, and I feel that the objectives envisaged by the late Aneurin Bevan have very little chance of being achieved so long as we have a Tory Government. I may say, in common with those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken already, that I reject totally this lamentable effort.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: My still relatively short experience of this House has impressed me with the generosity of the English silent majority towards the regional minorities. I spent this morning in the Scottish Grand Committee, which was considering the proposals for reforming the Scottish Health Service, and I had to observe a Trappist silence. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) is at a considerable advantage in that he is able to express his views so freely on the reorganisation of the English service.
The hon. Gentleman brought out the fair point that this document has very much to do with management. My right hon. Friend makes it clear that his structure is designed to achieve a more efficient management of the National Health Service. Some people may cavil

at this. The point is that management for the health service is management of a very different kind from the sort of management that one applies to industry. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out earlier, the essential yardstick of profitability clearly does not apply. But, although it is management of a different kind, it is still true that it is management and that it is extremely important.
We all know by now that there are all sorts of examples of the way in which resources are misallocated or allocated perversely. The hon. Gentleman gave one example when dealing with the figures for the variations over tonsillectomies and adenoidectomies in the Sheffield and Oxford regions. There are many more examples. Another fairly well known one is the variation existing between different parts of the country in the amount of time spent by patients in hospital before they have operations. In some regions it is an average of 2½ days In others it is an average of 1 day. These kinds of considerations in the effective management of resources are tremendously important. Clearly, a day and a half cut off the time that people spend waiting in hospital for operations means a reduction in the number of justifiable complaints about queues for getting operations done.
Management then is very important, but the complication is clinical freedom. Often there is a clash between the concept of what might be termed efficient throughput and the traditional and vitally important notion that the doctor must treat patients as he thinks best.
We have therefore to look at the reorganisation partly in terms of whether it will provide a more effective system for management. I do not think that the sorts of problems that I have discussed of achieving a more effective throughput can be solved by some diktat. Clearly we have to ask ourselves whether the framework offered by the Consultative Document gives the chance of a better approach.
My first criticism of the document is that I believe, as other hon. Members do, that it gives too little scope for professional representation on the various boards. I take issue with the view that management ability will be the main criterion in the selection of members and


that it would be inappropriate for authorities to be composed on a representational basis. I suggest a different concept. The boards, whether area or regional, could be constituted more reasonably on the analogy of industrial boards—the supervisory and the policymaking board in industry.
It is right to have both the professions and the general public, presumably in the shape of local authority representatives, on these boards. It is right, essentially, because, if it is done, it will be easier to get doctors to accept the decisions that the board will have to make. Under the boards, we should have some sort of system of a chief executive. We shall not get greatly improved efficiency in the Service unless we are prepared to see brought in the equivalent of managing directors. Equally, doctors will not accept the views, the arrangements or the instructions of these chief executives unless the policy boards which in turn have laid down the policy under which the chief executives act have doctors represented on them.
I am glad that there is to be some representation of local authorities, anyway at the area level. Like the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), I should like to have seen the Health Service come under a reformed system of local government. I remember in the dark ages before 18th June, 1970, when I was a mere journalist and the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State in all his glory, trying at one of his Press conferences to question him on this point. At the time, he said, "It is quite out of the question to have the two services merged." Probably he was right and that it was out of the question in practical terms. However, in 25 years' time, as this present Conservative Administration move towards the close of their period in office, it is probable that we shall see a new reorganisation of the Health Service. At the time of this next reorganisation, it may be that local authorities will be conbined with health authorities. That will be good for everyone.
The criticism which has been advanced that the present proposals are a little weak in democracy has some force. One would like to see a stronger democratic

framework. I am still worried about the regional tier. The top tier, the Secretary of State's tier, is accountable to Parliament. If it does anything wrong, we can criticise it. The area tier is not fully accountable, but it is somewhat accountable through the local authority representatives who will serve on it. But the regional tier in between seems to be unaccountable to anybody. There will be no way of getting at it and of trying to influence its decisions. I accept that there has to be some kind of regional framework, but I should have preferred to see the regional level on a consultative basis, a coming together of the areas with the representatives of the Secretary of State. I should have preferred executive powers to lie either formally with the Secretary of State or at the area board level. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look again at this point.
I have two other points to make. Firstly, I share the view that the general practitioner's position in the new service is still a bit vague. This is a Consultative Document and a White Paper is to come, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to fill in a little more information. I hope that he will formally base the whole concept of G.P. service on family medicine. I am convinced that the school health service should go into the family or community medical service. It is important that children should properly be looked after, but the right people to look after them, examine them, inspect them and treat their minor ailments are their family doctors. If we could have a fuller integration of the family doctors into the area structure proposed, it would make it that much easier to bring the present school health service into the family service.
By the same token, I would not support the notion of an occupational health service. To create another arm of the service in the factories and offices is in contradiction to the notion that what we want is a family service. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to enlighten us more on that subject.
Finally, before we go very much further, we must do some hard thinking about the structure of the service within the areas. We have got down to area level, but what is to happen within the areas? Probably the right analogy to adopt would be that of the education


service. In subdividing the area, there is a very tricky question as to whether to do that by districts, by geographical regions or by functions. Probably the right answer is to have a sub-committee to deal with the hospital side and another to deal with the community side. Again, each could have under it a strong executive officer to carry out the policy which it lays down.
I have made a number of criticisms. I am not entirely happy about the document as it stands. On the other hand, it gives us something to build on. An important point is that it shows clearly that it is the Government's intention to develop and strengthen the National Health Service rather than in any way to emasculate it.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I wish to deal briefly with the aspect of appointments. When the Secretary of State spoke about consultation with the various bodies, that sounded warm and cosy, but it is only what was said in the 1946 Act. I want to quickly examine how this has worked in practice.
I fully agree with the document when it talks about community health councils and refers to the importance of more effective representational mechanisms by which local attitudes can be known and safeguards built in. We should all agree that the service should be responsible to the general public but is appointment the best way to achieve this?
In the 1945 survey of health services, a map was produced for Bristol which showed that all hospital facilities were north of the river and none south of it. In 1971 the position is still the same. The population of Bristol north of the river is about 260,000, and south of the river it is 160,000. This gross total south of the river conceals an important change which has taken place since the war; a depopulation in the centre and a substantial growth of some 50,000 to the foot of Dundry Hill—at Withywood, Bishopsworth, Hartcliffe and Stockwood. This area has been promised a hospital since 1936. I recently raised this question with the Board and its excuse was that the present distribution of hospitals was inherited from the appointed day. I

accept that there is a semblance of an excuse there, but it is a feeble one.
The Board has responsibility for appointments to management committees. There are two very substantial hospitals on the north side of Bristol, Frenchay and Southmead, and these hospitals have claims for capital resources in competition with the south side of the city. I have become very curious in this matter and I have a handbook of the Regional Hospital Board 1970–71 with the addresses of the management committee members for those two major hospitals. I have checked those as best I can and I find that for Southmead Hospital, out of 22 committee members, 17 live on the north side of the river, none on the south side, two in North Somerset and three in South Gloucestershire. For Frenchay, out of a total of 15 members, eight live on the north side of the river, none on the south side, four live in North Somerset and three live in South Gloucestershire.
We have a situation in which 25 members of the management committee live on the north side of the river and none live on the south side. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) tells me that the odds of this happening by chance are 159,381 to 1. I believe the Regional Hospital Board owes the people on the southern side of the city some explanation for that. The situation is more serious than it seems because all the 25 members are in the north-west quadrant of the city, so the Board is, in effect, saying that three-quarters of the population of Bristol cannot produce one person suitable to be a member of a management committee. This is a serious position.
Consideration is taking place in the Bristol area at present about the future of the clinical area hospital system. Those management committees are being consulted, but no one on the south side of the city is getting a look in. If this system of appointment is to continue, we want to know whether the general public can have confidence that this sort of thing will not be perpetuated. If people are to support a system of appointment it must seek to be fair and truly representative not only of particular interests but of the areas where people live, the people who are the raw material on which the service is based.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: May I say how much I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)? A new doctrine is now emanating from the Opposition benches that power must be moved from central government towards local government. Could it be that this is because it is only in local government that the Opposition will have any power for many years to come?
I welcome the Consultative Document, and I especially accept the need for a greater accent upon management, but there are two aspects of the document with which I am not terribly happy. The first, which has been mentioned many times today, is the composition of the area health authorities. I have a lot of sympathy with the County Councils Association when it says that it is concerned that the proposed structure and membership could lead to increased insensitivity to public opinion. As a Member of Parliament, one's acquantance with the present structure usually confirms that most of the criticisms of it are in this respect. Though no organisation, especially one as large as the National Health Service, can be perfect, most of the complaints we receive can be put into this category.
There is little doubt that what is needed is much more local contact between the service, the public and locally elected representatives of the people. There will always be considerable criticism of the calibre of some local councillors, but most of them are very conscientious and do a very good job. They are the ideal means of liaising between those three aspects in this most sensitive sphere.
As my right hon. Friend knows, I am a member of a group on this side of the House which has given some attention to the subject. We have suggested that the area authority should be somewhat larger than the 14 members plus a chairman mentioned in the document. We suggested an authority of, say, 21, with no less than eight members appointed from the local authorities. A minimum of eight is necessary in the new areas. This is because we considered that the links between the public, local government and the service are so important.
Although the document rightly stresses the importance of good management and

clear lines of responsibility, I am not so sure about the statement in paragraph 14 that all members of the authority will be selected for their managerial ability. I do not see why this is necessary. By all means pick the administrators on their management ability, but the area health authority is the decision-making body and the one which represents the public at large. After all, when it comes to getting something done a committee of one is always best. Therefore, the job of management should be left to the high calibre professionals whom I hope that we shall be able to recruit, and that would leave the wider implications to the members of the area authority.
My second point arises from the first. I am very sceptical about the proposed community health councils. They are summed up by these words in the document—
It will produce an annual report.
That just about sums up the effectiveness of the councils. I believe that the whole idea has been put forward because of the fears that I have already mentioned today and which have been voiced on both sides of the House. These councils will do little good and will become mere talking shops. We know what little effect similar councils in the gas and electricity industries have upon public opinion.
We should use the local authority members on the area councils and give them something to do. This is the only way to create people of high ability in local government. They would feel that they were doing a worth-while job. Let us give them responsibility. Let us not expect them to waste their time on a consultative council.
A much more effective way of promoting good public relations would be to use the hospital management bodies. People like to be involved with their local hospital. Let us make them more like school governors. There would be a much greater public and local interest in the working of the hospitals and the Health Service if governors were appointed in the same way.
Today too many managers sitting on hospital and other Health Service bodies have too little relation to the public at large. Most members of the public have not the faintest idea who they are. If


my suggestion were followed this problem would be taken care of.
I agree with the hon. Lady for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) that an Omsbuds-man is needed in the Health Service to deal with the really serious complaints. If one were appointed, a much more democratic and sympathetic Health Service would be evolved.
Having expressed these two strong reservations, I welcome the document as at least a basis of discussion for a stronger and healthier Health Service for the nation.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: At this juncture in the development of the Health Service, which is a service in which we take great national pride, a very important question arises as to whether it is in the future to be based primarily on the hospital service or on a community medicine service. In the two decades for which the service has operated much more money has been spent on the hospital service than on the general practitioner service. The emphasis has been wrong. What has sustained the service throughout this period has been the work of the general practitioners, but this has been insufficiently recognised.
The Consultative Document places a great emphasis on the managerial side of things. The general practitioner service, however, has been the least managed of all sections of the health service. If we follow the pattern suggested in this document we are likely to perpetuate the emphasis from the Ministry point of view on the development of the hospital service rather than of the community medicine services.
For example, I am told that there are likely to be applications from 30 very well trained, first-class people for every consultant surgeon vacancy, whereas vacancies for general practitioners often cannot be filled. Thus there is a great lack of balance in development of the Service on this side.
The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Grossman) very cogently stated that someone who is seriously ill in Britain is in the best country in the world to be in such a condition, because he will be looked after wonderfully. In other respects we are woefully lacking. People

who are ill but who are not completely disabled and not acutely ill—for example, people suffering from piles—are not so well placed.
The emphasis in this document is wrong. We will, if we follow this pattern, perpetuate the over-emphasis on the hospital services and pay insufficient attention to the development of community medicine in all its aspects. The managerial types will inevitably be attracted by the idea of the large hospital, and so on, and will have little sympathy, possibly, for the community medicine aspect.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that good medicine in itself is a contribution towards human happiness. A well-managed, good service makes a contribution to the wellbeing of the potential patient. On the other hand, there is a gross over-emphasis in the document on management and far too little emphasis on popular representation. I cannot see why the good management cannot be provided by the professsional who is hired to do the job and who is accountable to people who are in close touch with the community. I cannot understand why in Britain there is always such a fear of the popular elected representative.
When, in reply to an intervention by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), the Secretary of State adumbrated the many aspects of the service and distinguished them because of the number of aspects from the education service, he was completely unconvincing. The greater the spectrum which the Service covers the greater the need for a sensitive body to show what the public reaction is to those services. That shows a greater need for popular accountability to popular elected representatives.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that the document is a little short on democracy. That was the understatement of the year. The document ignores the democratic principle. There is no accountability save from area level to regional level and from regional level to national level.
The accountability which is truly needed, as this is a service which is so important to the people and as their welfare and happiness are at stake, is through those who are elected to represent the people. I am convinced that the document proceeds along the wrong lines.

6.28 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Although the debate on the Consultative Document has been too short and, regrettably, not in the Government's time, we are left in no doubt about the strong feelings and criticisms of those who have taken part, at any rate on this side, and with a large amount of agreement from hon. Members opposite, such as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry).
The document is totally unacceptable because its proposals are divisive, undemocratic and seriously incomplete. The Minister is a Fellow of All Souls, but I am afraid that for this particular thesis he rates gamma minus. Even his speech was a triffe vague and left many questions unanswered and important matters not thought out. A mere 10 weeks have been allowed for discussion and for verdicts to be delivered. The fact that the Secretary of State has kindly apologised for mistakes in distribution and inadequate circulation of the document makes it all the more necessary to have longer to discuss it. I am glad, at least, that there will be no repetition of the event which took place when a member of a hospital management committee rang up his Department to ask for the document, to be greeted with the response, "Who are you, and why do you want it?"
Whatever the reasons, a disregard of democracy has affected distribution and discussion of the document, matched only by the undemocratic nature of the proposals in it. It is regrettable that the opportunity has not been taken to redefine both long-term and short-term Health Service objectives, for a structure is useless unless it is based on a clear set of priorities and strategies to be pursued.
On this side, we cannot accept even some of the basic principles underlying the proposals. It is generally agreed that the aim is to abolish the tripartite structure and create an integrated unified service, but the reorganised structure proposed would produce exactly the opposite of what is urgently needed.
These proposals will be divisive in their result. The 23,000 family doctors who are the backbone of the Health Service, instead of becoming integrated with the rest of it, would still be divided from the hospital service. Special committees will be set up to manage the general

practitioner, so re-emphasising his status as an isolated private contractor rather then a member of a team working with other doctors and hospital service staff.
There is no encouragement for the development of health centres, which is where the future of general practice lies, a point well brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Dr. Miller) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). Integration in this field is vital, and an opportunity to create it has been missed.
At the same time, the Health Service, both national and local, will be cut off from local authority social services, yet everyone knows that it is essential that these ought to work in co-ordination and co-operation if there is to be effective domiciliary care and after-care.
Perhaps the most serious criticism of the document, which has been repeated again and again in the debate, is that it is permeated by a distrust of democracy. We needed urgently to abolish regional hospital boards and hospital management committees because, as we know, they are self-perpetuating, oligarchic, and undemocratic. But what do we have put in their place? First, we have regional health authorities, entirely appointed by the Minister, which would become all-powerful and unaccountable to anybody; in effect, regional hospital boards all over again, and likely to consolidate the dominant position held by the hospital service. Second, we have the area authorities, which look like being hospital management committees all over again, though probably worse because they will, in the main, be appointed by the regional authorities. Third, we have the community health councils, appointed by the area authorities.
All this will perpetuate some of the worst features of the present arrangements. It is a negation of democracy. The Labour Government's Green Paper proposed one-third representing local authorities, one-third the professions and one-third the Health Department. Under the present Government's proposals, the voices of elected local authority representatives will be seriously muted, as will be the voice of the ordinary patient. Here again, we have a totally undemocratic proposal, to hive off into a siding so-called "local attitudes", that is, the


feelings of the public and, last but not least, the patients. These will be represented on community health councils, which will be edentulous bodies, purely advisory and with no powers. Members will be appointed, and sacked, presumably, by the area health authorities.
We are told, condescendingly it seems, that the authorities would take full account of the views of the public they serve. But this is no substitute for elected representatives with power to act. Today, there is a greater demand than ever before by the consumer to participate in management, to be consulted, to have his views heard, yet we seem to be going backwards under these proposals, instead of forwards.
Consultative bodies of the kind proposed usually engender a sense of impotence and frustration in the people who serve on them. No doubt, the Government would prefer that the consumer did not interfere with efficient management. They hope that these bodies could act as a sop to participatory enthusiasm. But should the so-called experts be allowed to govern undisturbed by the complaints of local people or patients who are the very ones whom the National Health Service is supposed to serve?
For those employed in the health service, representation is sacrificed at the altar of management ability. Direct election is sacrificed at the altar of selection and appointment. Do the Government really believe that democracy and efficient management are incompatible?
The initial response of doctors and the health professions is lukewarm, to say the least, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) pointed out. They protest that they would be grossly under-represented on the area authorities. Dr. James Cameron, on behalf of the family doctors, has told the B.M.A. Council:
The basis of these proposals is central control…the aim is to provide an efficient business service. Doctors and patients are not considered.
Dr. Christopher Lycett, for the public health side, has told the Council that business interests threaten to take over the health service.
From my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) we heard the view of the trade unions. They are united—N.A.L.G.O., C.O.H.S.E. and

N.U.P.E.—in feeling that there is a lack of representation for the unions. The County Councils Association has expressed doubts about whether the proposed increase in central control will lead to the expected increases in efficiency. It is concerned at the prospect of growing insensitivity to public opinion.
It may be said that those are the views of particular groups, but I can illustrate the point by what is happening in my constituency of Halifax, an industrial town. The education committee has decided not to give its backing to these plans. The health committee also has strongly criticised the plans, in particular, the proposed under-representation of local authority members. The finance and policy committee in Halifax has accepted a report prepared by the town clerk of Halifax criticising the Government's proposals. I add that the Halifax Council is Conservative-controlled, so those are not the views of a lot of Labour people wanting to be difficult.
One point made in the town clerk's report is that the consultative document
pays scant lip-service to democracy in its proposal that 'some' members are to be appointed by the local authority. As a matter for consultation at present, the document is…lamentably inadequate".
The town clerk refers to "objectionable" principles in the document and "unsatisfactory and inadequate" descriptions of other matters.
I trust that the Government will consider seriously these widespread criticisms of their document by people who work in the Health Service, who understand it and who have experience in it. They do not want control by bureaucrats. They do not feel that the Government's proposals really represent patients and public.
Every person who plays an active rôle in the Health Service should be represented in its organisation—consultants, general practitioners, technicians, health visitors, nurses, trade unions and local authorities. We have been hearing too much in this debate of managers, with little explanation of how they would be recruited, how their success would be judged, how many extra officials would have to be appointed and at what extra cost to the Health Service, how many hours they would work, and what would


be their career structure. We may have answers to those questions in the distant future.
I cannot see how the magic qualities of leadership, energy and drive, together with management ability, extolled by the Minister, can take the place of humanity and judgment and contact with patients and knowledge of their needs. That point was brought out extremely well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). In their obsession with efficient management, the Government are treating the Health Service like an industry. The board of directors is to be insulated from the criticisms of both workers' representatives and the shareholders. But the health service is not about machines; it is about sick people. It is not about productivity; it is about the prevention and treatment of disease. The document tells us that the Health Service cannot prosper without managerial skill. We know which the patient will choose if we ask him whether he wants managerial skill or humanity and communication with those in authority. But the word "patient" does not even occur in the document.
The document is consultative in name only. Two crucial, contentious and fundamental matters are still to be the subject of working parties—to decide detailed managerial arrangements at both the regional and area levels and the mechanism of the liaison between the Health Service and local authorities. How can anyone give a view on a document in which what is left out is as important as what is put in? We hope that the Government will have a totally open mind on those points, in which case they will have to present a second consultative document when the working parties have reported, because people cannot make a sound judgment on the present one.
A significant but not unexpected omission is the lack of any mention of an Ombudsman, a patients' watchdog. We understand that the Minister has not made up his mind on the matter. Why not? When does he expect to make it up? May we know what his mind will decide when it is made up? We have been waiting a very long time for this decision, but the Government should not rush into legislation on a matter which

will affect the Health Service for years to come.
We have had two previous Green Papers which have provided a great volume of informed criticism which is bursting out of the Elephant and Castle. It is unbelievable that at the end of 10 years' debate on the subject a third document should be so totally unsatisfactory that legislation is still awaiting the findings of two working parties. In his foreword to the document the right hon. Gentleman has stated:
… there must be early decisions, so that enthusiasm for reform does not wither away.
He must accept that there is no enthusiasm for reform on the lines of the document. I share his appreciation and admiration of the work of all who are in the health service. It is no easy task to abolish the tripartite system and integrate the service. What must be created is a Health Service which is sensitive to changing needs and demands, one in which the men and women operating the service and the patients using it can freely communicate with the management. We need leadership in a framework of genuine democracy. That is why the Consultative Document is unacceptable and should be withdrawn.

6.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): A large number of issues have been raised and many questions have been asked which I shall try to deal with. The main theme of the debate was that set out by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who has substantial experience as well as considerable debating skill, which we all admire. I should start by considering that theme and seeing whether we can rebut it. We should rebut it if we are to have confidence in our proposals, as we on this side of the House have. The right hon. Gentleman was convinced not only that we had included too many links in the chain but that we had strengthened the wrong link. He associated all that with a powerful plea for greater sensitivity to the grass roots, for more consumer participation.
I shall try to demonstrate that we have put at least as much strength and weight at the area authority level as the right hon. Gentleman's own Green Paper did. There is no doubt that our prescription


represents a substantial, clear and definite transfer of power from the concept of the existing regional hospital board to our new area concept.

Mr. Grossman: The key issue is money. We said that each area board should have its budget and that the budget should go right to us. The Government have put another authority between the Ministry and the area board, which they call a management authority, which will have a monitoring job and will control the area board in certain particulars. That is the basic criticism I am making, that the Government have left the regional board with a budget of its own, but then it has to chop that up into another budget for the area.

Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman is not being entirely consistent. He has admitted in his concept of the area authorities, as he prescribed them in his Green Paper, that there would be certain functions which they could not perform, the super-specialties and so on. His prescription is, therefore, to go straight from there to the central authority. That is the negation of his principle of intimate consumer participation, of links with those most immediately affected. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he wants strong consumer participation he cannot, as soon as we reach a point at which the most intimately involved unit of administration cannot deal with specialties, take an enormous leap to the highest authority. That is a contradiction of his basic thesis that there should be strong local consumer participation.
With the new area health authorities we are considering a group of 70 or 80 authorities which will replace the existing 300 hospital groups. It follows automatically that there will be a massive accretion of momentum to them in terms of power to plan, consider policy and so on. This new level of management is at least as powerful as anything considered by the right hon. Gentleman for the areas in his own prescription. The difference, admittedly, is that we interpose another link, which will be more responsive because it will be regional, not national.
I remind the House of some of the real powers and responsibilities which will lie with the area: the promotion of health

centres and group practice; the attachment of nurses to general practice; working out new schemes for health care of children from birth to adulthood, in liaison with the school and other local services. As between the hospitals and the community, there will be the planning and implementation of early discharge schemes; integrating hospital and home maternity services; improving the arrangements for early discharge from hospitals and the proper follow-up with home nursing care and better rehabilitation; closing the gaps between the general practitioner and the hospitals; providing better access to diagnostic services. All those matters are typical of the provisions which will now rest upon the fewer area authorities, which are at least as powerful as any the right hon. Gentleman proposed.
The right hon. Gentleman severely over-estimates the degree of consumer contact or local responsiveness inherent in his own proposals for area health authorities.
The participation which the right hon. Gentleman envisaged in his own authorities was divisible into three, as I remember it. There was to be local authority representation. But the right hon. Gentleman is kidding himself if he thinks that the local authority representation at the area level which he proposed, corresponding to the new upper tiers of the provincial counties, or the lower tiers of the new metropolitan areas, would be the very acme of the fullest and most perfect expression of responsiveness and consumer sensitivity to the feelings of local people.
The right hon. Gentleman represents a well built-up urban constituency; as one who represents a rural area, I assure him that my parish councillors tell me that not even rural district councils have any idea of what rural people think. How much less would the new local authority representatives from the much bigger upper tiers in the provincial counties and area conurbations be responsive under the arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman proposed.

Mr. Crossman: For participation locally, what we proposed was that there should be a district committee for each area immediately appointed. It would have half its representatives elected from the district. This was all extra. What


we have instead are the damned consultative committees.

Mr. Alison: Here is the right hon. Gentleman enumerating the extra tiers he proposed, precisely what he was criticising us for doing

Mr. Crossman: Mr. Crossman rose—

Mr. Alison: No; the right hon. Gentleman has had his participation already. He does not like having his scheme slightly examined, but when it is examined it proves to be a great deal less convincing and more fragile than at first met the eye. He complained that there were too many tiers in our system and then he spelt out a whole series of tiers which were in his own proposals. We have succeeded in providing through the community health councils an exact replica, although in a different context, of the fourth tier which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing.
What were the other elements of representation in the right hon. Gentleman's area authorities? He was to have representatives of the professions. That is fair enough, but since when were the professions, because they were represented, in turn particularly representative of, or sensitive to—

Mr. Crossman: Mr. Crossman rose—

Mr. Alison: Let me at least complete my sentence. Why should representatives of the professions, simply because the right hon. Gentleman decides to slot them in as a representative body, necessarily be all that responsive to the grass roots, to the Mrs. Mopps and Ena Sharples, who are meant to be those with the greatest need to be represented?

Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know the answer, it is this. He is talking of having them as though they would be advisers. They were to be elected by the professions locally, by the local G.Ps., for instance. If he wants to know, he had better ask the B.M.A. and the G.Ps. whether it is better from their point of view to be represented by someone chosen from among their own people in the district, in the area, or just consulted?

Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman tries to draw that little fig leaf across his

nakedness. They would be elected by the professions, but would they represent local populace feelings? I have tried to demonstrate that two-thirds of the right hon. Gentleman's area authorities would not necessarily be representative, and that the final one-third would be directly appointed by the right hon. Gentleman. There was nothing representative about that final one-third of the area representatives, who were to be the right hon. Gentleman's own nominees. They would either not be satraps, in which case the right hon. Gentleman would have lost control of them, in which case they would do him no good anyway, or they would be castrated satraps, in which case it is difficult to see what use they would be.
The right hon. Gentleman's marvellous prescription for an area authority split into three and meant to be extremely sensitive and responsive to the wishes and whims of local people was a complete myth and facade. It conjured up a hopeless compromise of which the nearest analogy was the old system of government in France, which was a mixture of compromise and vested interests resulting in debate, discussion and immobility and all it needed was some powerful authority to come down on top of it and the French got de Gaulle. The right hon. Gentleman's prescription for the reorganisation of the National Health Service was exactly that—an ineffective area authority which, in the end, would have to be taken over, directed and managed by a sort of Coventry de Gaulle.
This is simply not good enough. What we have said that we should have as an alternative is a proper balance between managerial effectiveness, with the proper checks and balances which are inherent in our proposals, and consumer representation. One thing which is clear about our proposals is that, as compared with the right hon. Gentleman's, there is in ours a machinery through which the community health councils for the district are genuinely involved in appraising and criticising. There is no doubt that, in the new system and with the list of powers and rights which I have read out, the councils will not only have access to the plans which the area authorities are proposing, but will have access to the officers and will have power to visit hospitals. They will represent


all the district local interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Participation?"] I understood that the Labour Party was anxious that there should be a sense of participation. What we have provided is a clear scheme of responsibility on one side and power to examine and to send for papers and to criticise on the other with, above all, access to the hospitals and all the machinery which works at the local level.
In these proposals we have the clarification of the difference between "management on the one hand and the community's reaction to management on the other"—that is the key determining phrase—which one has, for example, in our system of Government. The power to stand apart from the Government, as we do in Parliament, but nevertheless having the right to appraise, to criticise and to consider is nothing less than the extension in principle and philosophy of the parliamentary system as we understand it to the new community councils. It is a clear division of responsibility between management and those who have the power—whether they have been appointed by my right hon. Friend, or elected, or appointed by local consumer bodies and voluntary organisations—the power to send for papers and to appraise and criticise and consider. This is a great deal more effective—

Mr. Crossman: What can they do without responsibility?

Mr. Alison: That is a nice question from the right hon. Gentleman who wields one of the biggest levers of journalistic influence in the country. He asks what those who have power without responsibility can do. There is no doubt that in this prescription we have an exact match of what we need for the clarification of managerial principles and for representation, more sensitively and at a much more direct district level than

anything envisaged in the right hon. Gentleman's proposals.

Tempting though it is to pursue the right hon. Gentleman into the blind alleys and the paths and trails into which he led the House in his excellent debating speech, in the few minutes remaining to me I must try to answer one or two questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Now that there is not time."] I thought that it was right for me, as a junior Minister, to spend the bulk of the short time available to me trying to answer the philosophical, critical basis of the argument put forward by the first incumbent of the authority of the post of Secretary of State for Social Services.

The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) asked about the occupational health service. In the sense of medical inspection of factories and the control and prevention of occupational disease this service is at present a matter for the Department of Employment. For some time there has been consultation with industry and with trade unions about improvements and developments in that service. As for bringing these important specialised services, which are so closely linked with industrial practice, within the scope of the National Health Service, as the previous Government decided in their Green Paper, we concluded that in this National Health Service reorganisation the service would not be expected to include the occupational health service with its essential connections with industry.

Mr. Joseph Harper: Mr. Joseph Harper (Pontefract) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 232.

Division No. 403.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Booth, Albert
Crawshaw, Richard


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bradley, Tom
Cronin, John


Allen, Scholefield
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ashton, Joe
Carmichael, Neil
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Barnes, Michael
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davidson, Arthur


Barnett, Joel
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Coleman, Donald
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Concannon, J. D.
Deakins, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Bishop. E. S.
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Delargy, H. J.




Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Price, William (Rugby)


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Rankin, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunnett, Jack
Leonard, Dick
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Ellis, Tom
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roper, John


Evans, Fred
Lipton, Marcus
Rose, Paul B.


Faulds, Andrew
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sandelson, Neville


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Foot, Michael
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Silverman, Julius


Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Gilbert, Dr. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Small, William


Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Spearing, Nigel


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfieid, E.)
Stallard, A. W.


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marks, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marquand, David
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marsden, F.
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, William (Fite, W.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hamling, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Swain, Thomas


Hardy, Peter
Mayhew, Christopher
Taverne, Dick


Harper, Joseph
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mendelson, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian
Tinn, James


Hooson, Emlyn
Millan, Bruce
Tomney, Frank


Horam, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Torney, Tom


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Tuck, Raphael


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Urwin, T. W.


Huckfield, Leslie
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wallace, George


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Watkins, David


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Janner, Greville
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric
Whitehead, Phillip


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


John, Brynmor
Oram, Bert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Padley, Walter
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Paget, R. T.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. charles
Woof, Robert


Jonts, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)



Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Judd, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. John Golding and


Kaufman, Gerald
Perry, Ernest G.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Kerr, Russell
Prescott, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Drayson, G. B.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bryan, Paul
du Cann. Rt. Hn. Edward


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh


Astor, John
Bullus, Sir Eric
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Atkins, Humphrey
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Awdry, Daniel
Channon, Paul
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emery, Peter


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Churchill, W. S.
Eyre, Reginald


Batsford, Brian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Farr, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Clegg, Walter
Fell, Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Coombs, Derek
Fidler, Michael


Benyon, W.
Cooper, A. E.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Biffen, John
Cordle, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Blaker, Peter
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Cormack, Patrick
Fortescue, Tim


Body, Richard
Critchley, Julian
Foster, Sir John


Boscawen, Robert
Crouch, David
Fowler, Norman


Bossom, Sir Clive
Curran, Charles
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gardner, Edward


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gibson-Watt, David


Braine, Bernard
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bray, Ronald
Dixon, Piers
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Goodhart, Philip







Goodhew, Victor
Loveridge, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Gorst, John
Luce, R. N.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Gower, Raymond
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Rost, Peter


Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin
Royle, Anthony


Grieve, Percy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Griffiths, Eidon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McMaster, Stanley
Scott, Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gummer, Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sharples, Richard


Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maddan, Martin
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Madel, David
Simeons, Charles


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marples, Rt Hn. Ernest
Sinclair, Sir George


Haselhurst, Alan
Marten, Neil
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Hastings, Stephen
Mather, Carol
Soref, Haroid


Havers, Michael
Maude, Angus
Speed, Keith


Hay, John
Mawby, Ray
Spence, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hicks, Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hiley, Joseph
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Holland, Phillip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Holt, Miss Mary
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hornby, Richard
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Mudd, David
Tebbit, Norman


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Murton, Oscar
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Howell, David (Guildford)
Neave, Airey
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Normanton, Tom
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hunt, John
Nott, John
Tilney, John


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Onslow, Cranley
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


James, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Trew, Peter


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Waddington, David


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Percival, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kilfedder, James
Pink, R. Bonner
Wall, Patrick


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Ward, Dame Irene


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Warren, Kenneth


Kinsey, J. R.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wearherill, Bernard


Kirk, Peter
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Raison, Timothy
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Knox, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Lane, David
Redmond, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Legg-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rees-Davles, W. R.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Mr. Jasper More.


Longden, Gilbert

BRISTOL CORPORATION (WEST DOCK) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) and his hon. Friends to postpone Second Reading for six months.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren: I support the Bill and commend it to the House. It is a Bill to authorise Bristal Corporation to construct a new dock system called West Dock on land across the River Avon opposite Avon-mouth. The land is in north Somerset and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who, I know, supports the Bill. My own special interest in it is that the dock would be an extension of Avonmouth, which is in my constituency.
The Bill itself is in the form generally in use for these purposes and contains provisions conferring powers to construed works, to extinguish private rights of way, and matters of that kind. The substantial question before the House tonight is whether Bristol Corporation, which owns and manages the Port of Bristol. should have parliamentary authority to construct the proposed dock. The Bill started in another place and survived the scrutiny of an opposed Private Bill Committee.
The main case for the Bill is as follows. All over the world the tendency has been for docks and harbours to be located nearer the mouths of estuaries, nearer deep water. The reasons are that ships grow larger in size; they are no longer physically able to sail up narrow rivers and go through locks to inland ports, or to spend the extra time and incur the expense which this involves. The Port of Bristol started in the centre of our city and flourished there for several centuries. In late Victorian and in Edwardian times Avonmouth was constructed seven miles downstream at the mouth of the River Avon, and the larger ships used it rather than the city docks. The forces which I have mentioned are

now compelling the Port of Bristol Authority to propose the closing down of the city docks altogether. That is the subject of another Bill, to which I refer only in passing.
Avonmouth is full up; there are frequent berth delays there; ships have to wait in the roads outside the port. No land is available there for further expansion. There are signs of obsolescence. It is difficult to upgrade the facilities for the larger ships of tomorrow, and the bulk carriers which are going to arrive will not be able to go through Avonmouth lock gates.
So if the Port of Bristol is to continue to survive it is essential that it should be allowed to construct the new West Dock system and be able to provide unprovided facilities which are required by shipping in the changed circumstances of the end of the twentieth century.
All the hon. Members who, on both sides of the House, sit for Bristol are, I think, united in asking that the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
The history of the matter is that the Port of Bristol Authority, with commendable foresight, bought the land in about 1959 and is asking to be allowed to construct the dock on land which is already in the authority's ownership. The estimated cost is between £12 million and £13 million. Bristol Corporation is prepared to raise and find this amount itself, but, naturally, if an Exchequer grant were forthcoming, it would be welcome; but the scheme does not essentially depend on that. So all we are asking Parliament to allow us to do is to build the dock on our own land and at our own expense.
Let me set out the main advantages to the country. We have a virgin site on undeveloped farmland, a wonderful opportunity to make a modern, convenient layout capable of taking ships up to 65,000 tons. It is not like the case where docks have to be extended to some further corner of industrial land. It is near deep water which Providence has decreed should run on the Bristol and not the South Wales side of the Channel. We have close access to the motorway network, the M4 and M5 motorways, east, west, south and north. How different from the situation of the London and Liverpool docks where road transport has to endure long delays in traffic


blocks in the streets leading to those docks. Hitherto it has been thought that the port depended for its traffic on the industrial hinterland a relatively short distance from the port, but I think the West Dock, if we have it, will show that this concept is out of date. Goods are going to roll along the motorways from 100 miles away in two hours, and goods will be exported through Bristol from the Midlands and from the western outskirts of London in preference to being sent to London docks or to. Merseyside. It will be quicker to get from, say, Slough to Bristol than to the Royal Docks in London, and this will lead not only to a saving in time but to a saving in wear and tear of vehicles and in transport costs.

Mr. Roy Hughes: On this question of the motorways, while I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has developments taking place in his area, is he aware of very similar developments taking place in South Wales?

Mr. McLaren: That is quite true. Newport Docks, for which the hon. Members speaks, and South Wales have the M4, but Avonmouth and West Dock are superbly sited because they are very close to the crossing at Almondsbury of the M4 and M5 and, therefore, have motorway access, as I say, to all points of the compass.
Although we have this virgin site with these superb road transport facilities, we have also on the doorstep the whole complex of specialist services on which the success of any port depends—the skilled manpower, stevedores, the tugs, the expert management which the port has always enjoyed. Also we are in distance the nearest steaming point to the main oceanic routes, with economies in steaming time.
The economics of the project have been thoroughly considered. Consultants have reported that the rate of return on capital investment should be from 12 per cent. to 16 per cent. over an assumed life of the dock of 50 years.
I now turn to consider the attitude of the National Ports Council to our case. As the House will know, that body was formed under the Harbours Act, 1964, to be an expert adviser to the Government on whether projects for harbour development would be in the national interest

and, particularly, whether they would cause overlapping and be unnecessary.
History shows that not once, not twice, but three times the National Ports Council has made favourable recommendations in respect of this project. On the present occasion it reported to the Ministry in the following terms:
The ultimate question is whether the advantages which authorisation of West Dock II would bring in port operational local and regional terms, and of which the port management and their parent corporations are convinced, are offset by disadvantages from the national point of view which would justify rejection of the scheme for a third time. The Council's view is that this development should take place…".
The House may have noticed that only within the last few days the Council has issued its latest annual report, paragraph 63 of which deals with the West Dock and says:
During the year the Port of Bristol Authority were successful in their third consecutive application for a new dock development on the Somerset bank of the Avon. The Council recommended this scheme for approval, as indeed they have recommended earlier schemes, on the basis, inter alia, that without such development the port of Bristol would decline. The estimated cost of the scheme was distinctly less than that for earlier schemes thanks to the port authority reconsidering layout, obtaining additional site information and applying the latest engineering techniques in the design.
The House will see that we have enjoyed the advantage of the repeated blessings of the National Ports Council, the very body appointed by Parliament to judge these projects and make recommendations to the Government of the day. Acting on that latest recommendation, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries authorised the scheme on 7th November last in the exercise of his powers under Section 9 of the Harbours Act. We are grateful to him for that decision, and we congratulate him on having reached the right decision. We have also had the approval and support for several years of the Southwest Economic Planning Council and of the trade unions representing dock workers.
The first version of the project was called the Portbury Scheme. It appeared in 1965. It was a much larger scheme which would have cost about £27 million. Under the Harbours Act any harbour development costing more than £50,000 had to receive the approval of the Minister.


Under the stress of objections from South Wales, this approval was withheld by the Minister of Transport in 1966, even though the project was recommended by the National Ports Council.
We tried again. In 1968 a modified version was brought forward—West Dock Mark I, which was again recommended by the National Ports Council. But the Bill seeking authorisation for this was defeated in the House on 8th July, 1968, the Government Whips acting as tellers against it. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who is always so shrewd, told the House on that occasion that our case was opposed for political reasons.
Why should the projects have so far been defeated in this way? The answer is because of the political activities, perfectly legitimate, of hon. Members opposite representing constituencies in South Wales, who saw in the Bristol plans a supposed threat to the prosperity of their own dock undertakings. I shall seek to show that these fears are misplaced.
There are two arguments against the South Wales view. The first is that the trades on each side of the Bristol Channel are essentially different. The South Wales ports are largely importers of iron ore for conversion into steel and exporters of finished steel products. Bristol, on the other hand, is an importer of miscellanous cargoes, some in bulk, such as grain, feeding stuffs, oil, tobacco, meat, Butter, cheese, tea and coffee. The trades are different and are bound to keep mainly to their own sides of the Channel, as they have done so far.
The second argument is that the more shipping that can be attracted to the Bristol Channel the more benefit there will be to ports on both sides of it. There is a mutual advantage. If one port is full, a ship will be diverted to another. It is like the old-fashioned shopping centre when the supermarket arrives. The smaller shopkeepers fear the worst, but what often happens is that the whole shopping centre has more custom and added benefit goes to all of them.
What we really have to decide, on both sides of this House and on both sides of the Bristol Channel, is whether or not we believe in the Bristol Channel as a

shipping estuary. If we do, the West Dock is needed as a facility just as much as Milford Haven or Port Talbot. It is the whole complex which gains. We have to provide facilities which suit every ship. If the facilities are there, the trade will follow.

Mr. Tom King: Does my hon. Friend accept that an increase in trade in the Bristol Channel will benefit all ports in the Bristol Channel, not least Bridgwater and Watchet?

Mr. McLaren: Yes. I can go further. This project has the support and good will of the whole of the West of England.

Mr. John Morris: Would not harm be done to the Bristol Channel if there were massive under-utilisation of the South Wales ports and the West Dock was not able to pay its way? Was not that the evidence given by the Docks Board on the 1968 Bill?

Mr. McLaren: That point was dealt with a great deal more recently in the Committee proceedings in another place. Three corporations from South Wales objected to the Bill. They were represented by learned counsel. The Committee was satisfied that their case had not been made out. I would be very sorry if there were any diminution of trade in South Wales ports but I do not expect that to happen. Equally, I think that the West Dock will be a success. It will not be half empty or need to cut its rates unfairly.

Mr. Morris: If the hon. Gentleman's thesis is correct, does he not agree that one must look at the estuary as a whole? Would there not be harm to the whole if there were serious financial deficiencies on the one hand at the South Wales ports because of under-utilisation, and overcapacity at the Bristol West Dock? Would not harm be done to the whole estuary if they were all in financial difficulties?

Mr. McLaren: The fallacy of that argument relates to the amount of trade that will come to Bristol from the South Wales areas. I am more of an optimist. I hope to see an increased volume of trade which will benefit the whole area. Since the end of the war much development has taken place in South Wales ports and much Government money has been


spent in grants to improve them. A different attitude has been shown on both sides of the Bristol Channel. We in Bristol are delighted that the South Wales ports should be modernised and developed, and we pay our share as taxpayers. I say "Good luck" to them. We hope that they, for their part, will display a more magnanimous spirit. Why should they fear honest competition? I hope that at long last they will give up this dog-in-the-manger attitude of suspicion.

Mr. Alan Williams: One of the reasons why we are so suspicious is that the Chairman of the Port of Bristol Authority is on record as saying that one of his intentions is to adopt an aggressive marketing policy with the object of winning as much traffic as he possibly can from other ports and that, in this respect, no holds would be barred. That is why we are worried.

Mr. McLaren: I do not think the Chairman of the Port of Bristol Authority had the South Wales ports specifically in mind. We are entitled to seek, by honest competition, to draw in the direction of the West Dock via the M5 motorway, some of the traffic from the Midlands which now goes to other ports. The spirit should be that we should prosper together and benefit from the increased trade.
There are some hopeful signs. We have noticed that the Welsh ports which petitioned against the Bill in another place have not put forward a petition in this House. If the House is willing to give a Second Reading to the Bill this evening, it will proceed as an unopposed Private Bill. The ground was cut from under the feet of the Welsh ports by the impartial verdict of the National Ports Council that the Bristol plan was required and that there would be no undesirable duplication. Other hon. Members from the Bristol area will improve on what I have tried to say by mentioning other aspects.
The Port of Bristol has had a glorious history in English life. As long ago as 1273 Bristol supplied 23 ships to fight against the French in the Hundred Years War. For that, Edward III made us a City and County. It was from our port that Sebastian Cabot sailed to discover the New World. Coming to our own times, Bristol was a main base for the American forces who helped to liberate the Continent of Europe in 1944.
I trust that this House, not unmindful of the splendours of history of the Port of Bristol, will agree to give us the opportunity to modernise and recreate our facilities so that we may continue to thrive and prosper and give valuable maritime service to our country in the new age which is to come.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The Bill has been very ably moved by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren). There is a large attendance of West Country Members in the Chamber tonight. What is noticeable is that there is not a single Conservative Member in the Chamber who represents South Wales interests. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) after a similar debate three years ago this month voted against his Conservative colleagues. However tonight, presumably following the change of Government, he feels that he can absent himself from the Chamber.
I would also draw attention to representatives of Her Majesty's Government from the Welsh Office—

Hon. Members: Where are they?

Mr. Hughes: Any representation from the Welsh Office is missing tonight, and this is a disgrace to the Principality.

Mr. Robert Adley: May I remind the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) of what was said to him by Mr. Speaker when we debated the Bristol Corporation Bill three years ago:
The hon. Member must take note of what I said. This is not the Newport Corporation Bill; it is the Bristol Corporation Bill. He must link his remarks to the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1968; Vol. 768, c. 172.]

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman will be silent for a moment, I will make my case. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House very long, whereas I have been a Member during most of the instalments of what I would remind him has been a long saga. There was the lavish Portbury scheme, costing £27 million; there was then the cut-down £15 million West Dock Mark I scheme; and tonight we are debating the Bristol West Dock Mark II scheme.
I, like other hon. Members, have received a document from the promoters


of the Bill, which points out in paragraph 12:
It is respectfully submitted that the proposals contained in the Bill do not involve any question of principle which is open to objection of so serious a character as to justify refusing to grant the Bill a Second Reading. It is also submitted that the merits of the Bill raise issues which cannot conveniently be discussed in detail on the Floor of the House.
I will treat those remarks with the contempt that they deserve.
We in South Wales have been consistent in our opposition to the Bristol expansion scheme. We have pointed to the fact that the South Wales ports are considerably under-used. Last year, the Newport Docks were closed for four months and the trade was diverted to other ports in South Wales; but those ports were still not fully utilised. It is estimated that at present they are working at only half capacity. It is worth pointing out that if working to full capacity the labour force in the South Wales docks would have to be doubled.
The South Wales area has had a serious unemployment problem for a long period of time. We maintain that a development of this kind in South Wales could be carried out more quickly, efficiently and at a fraction of the cost. Therefore, we were surprised and shocked to hear on 17th November last that the Minister for Transport Industries had given Bristol the go-ahead for this scheme. This matter had been fully discussed in the debate on 8th July, 1968.
Mr. Richard Marsh was then Minister of Transport. He gave a very considered judgment about this matter. It is interesting that the present Secretary of State for the Environment thought so much of Mr. Marsh's ability and judgment that he made him Chairman of British Railways. However, in view of the way in which this matter was gone into in depth by Mr. Marsh, it is a pity that it has been reopened tonight.
We are discussing a major piece of public expenditure, and I know that all hon. Members will agree that national resources must be used to the best possible advantage. Whether the money is raised by Bristol using its rates as security, or raised directly out of public funds, it is still public expenditure. This Government have taken a strong line on public expenditure, and they have made

certain cuts. We have had proposals to cut housing subsidies. They have been mean and parsimonious over school milk and meals. Where is the consistency when they allow wasteful and unnecessary expenditure of this sort by allowing Bristol's West Dock scheme to go ahead? They are the Government who promised to cut prices "at a stroke". Instead, they have introduced inflation on South American standards. They promised to cut unemployment "at a stroke". Instead, they have taken us back to the 1930s.

Mr. Alan Williams: My hon. Friend's point about inflation is directly relevant to this case, since it was estimated in the course of the Committee proceedings in the other place that in 12 months the cost has risen 12 per cent. above that which we are asked to approve tonight and that, in the time that it takes to build the dock, it will probably rise by another third.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is quite right. I shall quote some figures on this point in a moment.

Mr. Donald Coleman: My hon. Friend referred just now to local authority expenditure and the action of the Government in respect of school milk. May I remind him that the Government have introduced a Measure which refuses the right of Bristol Corporation to spend money on school milk while, at the same time, it is to be permitted to spend a vast sum on this wasteful scheme?

Mr. Hughes: That illustrates the inconsistency of the Government in this matter. I agree wtih my hon. Friend entirely.
There is the question of the grant which it is permissible for the Government to authorise under the 1964 Act. However, if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite gave a grant towards this scheme, it would be a shameful decision. For South Wales, it would be adding insult to injury. In the 1968 debate, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) moved the Second Reading of the Bill and indicated that Bristol would be prepared to go ahead without a grant. That has been reiterated tonight by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West. This is a very important point. My understanding was that many interests in Bristol were prepared to go ahead only


if a Government grant was forthcoming. I hope that the Minister for Transport Industries will comment on that.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: My hon. Friend must appreciate that this is not a party issue. The scheme was put forward by Bristol when the Labour Party was in control of the corporation. It has been supported throughout by the Labour Party in the City.

Mr. Hughes: I have not referred to any controversy of a political nature. I am glad to hear that there is none.
The famous city of Bristol is the centre of an important and prosperous sub-region. Economically, Bristol is developing fast. Its population is increasing rapidly, and the number of jobs in the city has risen correspondingly. However, the level of port traffic is below the average for the rest of the country. That suggests that the economy of Bristol does not depend on the port. Indeed, why should it? After all, ours is only a tiny island. Why should not traffic go to other ports?
Mr. Richard Marsh pointed out that the discounted cash flow was insufficient, in his judgment, and that there was no industrial hinterland. He rejected the scheme on economic grounds alone. There was nothing parochial in his decision.
If a Conservative Government go ahead with the scheme, a shipping war may break out in the Bristol Channel because of doubts about the financing of the scheme. One has to bear in mind such matters as interest payments, general maintenance and development, and staffing. It is estimated that they will demand approximately £5 million. Certainly that is far more than the existing Bristol trade of 7 million to 8 million tons would justify, even assuming a modest expansion.
The port of Bristol has given an estimate of a discounted cash flow of between 11 and 16 per cent. Forecasting is essentially a matter of judgment, but hon. Members representing South Wales constituencies and a number of technical experts have maintained that that claim is highly exaggerated.
The project envisages a dock capable of handling ships of 65,000 tons. We

feel that such a project is not in line with modern trends of port development. The trend is towards much larger ships, of 100,000 tons and over and ships of 30,000 tons or less.
When one comes to consider the financial prospects of docks, one has only to look at what has happened in Liverpool and in London and all the financial troubles there. Since Bristol made its last application in 1968, the situation of ports has deteriorated rapidly.

Mr. Neil McBride: I am sure that my hon. Friend has read that Bristol hopes to take in goods and trans-ship them to the North-East. In view of the fact that there are ports in the North-East, is not that economic argument a fallacious one?

Mr. Hughes: Certainly it would do great harm to the North-East, which is already an area of chronic unemployment that is facing a very difficult economic situation.
In April, 1968, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Transport answered an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Mr. Palmer), in the course of which he said:
On any reasonable assessment of traffic and revenue prospects, the West Dock Scheme can at best barely pay for itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 852.]
Since then, the financial state of our docks has deteriorated markedly.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Northwest reiterated the argument of Bristol Corporation that it has the support of the National Ports Council. On the surface, that seems to be very powerful support. However, following the performances of Sir Arthur Kirby in 1968, I do not take him very seriously. In past years he was a prominent colonial administrator. However, when he recommended the 1968 scheme I found his remarks rather comical. I put it as low as that. For instance, in a letter to the Ministry of Transport, dated 24th August 1967, about the West Dock scheme, he said:
The project was not one that could be recommended to you if the test were to be solely that of early and substantial return on the investment. Other ports have had investment, so Bristol should, too.


He concluded:
It is not to my liking to have to recommend a project on this negative line of reasoning.
I find this very poor evidence to endorse a major piece of public expenditure. It may have been the way to recommend a scheme in darkest Africa, but it is not the way to recommend a scheme involving a large amount of national expenditure in modern Britain.
I contrast that with the evidence of Mr. Tom Roberts, who is the South Wales Ports Director. In the first West Dock hearing he was asked by counsel for the Docks Board:
Would you regard it ordinarily as a business proposition to simply lay out capital on hopes without any firm commitment?
Mr. Roberts' reply was:
No. This is quite contrary to our policy.
Mr. Richard Marsh, the then Minister of Transport, on 8th July, 1968, said:
if I were a Bristolian, I would have some doubt about a project which would be such a charge on public funds as this one.
He then went on to illustrate some figures:
In the second year there would be a deficit of £97,000 which would be just over Id. on the rate. In the third year there would be a deficit of £258,000, equivalent to a 3d. rate. In the fourth year there would be a deficit of £507,000, equivalent to 5·7d. on the rate. In the fifth year there would be a net deficit of £748,000 with a rate equivalent of 8·4d.…Nobody is in any doubt that this is not expected to be a profitable investment for a very long time, if ever. That is not a matter for me; that is a matter for Bristolians. The burden of my case is that a major port investment must be viewed in a national context in terms of port policy and the call on national resources.
Later, he said:
no Government, of any party would be able to accept an investment on this level, of this speculative nature and with this level of return."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1968; Vol. 768, c. 151–54.]
Those were the reasons for the then Minister of Transport using his powers under the Harbours Act, 1964, to veto the scheme.
Since 1968 the situation has certainly deteriorated. I represent the county borough of Newport. We are very worried about our docks. Last year, the new iron ore terminal was opened at Port Talbot. It is interesting to note that it has been a very good investment. In the first nine months of operation it has made

a surplus of about £500,000. Nevertheless, the British Steel Corporation has announced that it intends to bring its imports of iron ore overland to Port Talbot to service the Ebbw Vale steel works and the Spencer steel works at Llanwern. This decision has caused a great deal of concern in Newport. Iron ore is the basis of Newport's port trade. If this trade is taken away from Newport and the West Dock is built, it will be competing for the small amount of trade which is left in Newport. Our port would then face a difficult situation. What trade would be left? There are steel coils, motor vehicles and timber, representing about £1 million. If the West Dock is built, it will have to capture this trade. If it is not successful in obtaining this trade it certainly should not be built.

Mr. McLaren: The hon. Gentleman quoted the views of Mr. Tom Roberts, whom we all respect. I was interested to see that recently his views were quoted in the Welsh Grand Committee. He appeared on television and the following question was put to him:
How do you see the future of the South Wales ports on the presumption that this Bristol scheme goes ahead?
Mr. Roberts' reply was as follows:
I still view the future of the South Wales ports with the utmost confidence. The Severn Estuary is second only to the Thames in the present volume of its trade, and its further potential is enormous."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 10th March, 1971; c. 52.]
Does not that paint a more hopeful picture for all of us?

Mr. Hughes: Mr. Tom Roberts is a powerful authority in these matters. He was certainly a very powerful opponent of the West Dock scheme in 1968. What has changed? The Government have changed. I am not suggesting that a directive has gone out from the Minister for Transport Industries to the British Transport Docks Board saying that it is not to oppose the West Dock scheme. However, I learned early in life that there is more than one way of killing a pig. There are obvious examples before the eyes of the Docks Board officials. There is the fate of Lord Hall at the Post Office, the fate of Lord Robens at the Coal Board, and the position of Lord Melchett is most precarious. As I see it, jobs are very much at stake in this instance.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that Mr. Roberts' views are expressed solely out of consideration for retaining his job? I hope that he will withdraw that slur on a considerable public servant.

Mr. Hughes: The Under-Secretary knows that I dealt with this matter in the Welsh Grand Committee. I said then that if Mr. Roberts had changed his opinion on the matter it was the greatest conversion for 2,000 years. I stand by that.

Mr. John Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that hitherto there has been no suggestion that Mr. Roberts has changed his mind in any way? The quotation by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) was an expression of confidence by Mr. Roberts to keep up the spirits of those in his employ. There has been no suggestion that he has changed his mind at all.

Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
If this project goes ahead it will, on the one hand, be a disaster for the national economy, for the estuary as a whole, and certainly for the citizens and ratepayers of Bristol. On the other hand, if it is viable, we should have to close all the ports in South Wales. This is the only conclusion to which we can come.
Today we have had the annual report of the Docks Board in South Wales. It shows a small surplus of £300,000, but what we have to take into consideration is the fact that the margin between profit and loss is extremely marginal, of the order of 1 per cent. to 2 per cent., and all that South Wales has to do is to lose that 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. to the West Dock and it would go into the red. The position as we see it is that West Dock never gets out of the red, and the whole of the Bristol Channel is bankrupt, in the red, resulting in ruin to the estuary and to the national economy. What a monument that would be to these latter-day merchant adventurers in Bristol.
It is heartening on our side of the Channel to note that there are now dissentient voices on the other side. I have in mind a business man, Mr. Terry Bryant, who took a full page advertisement in the

Daily Press of 15th April. Dealing with the question of loans he said:
The Port of Bristol Authority has…borrowed a total of £6,346,132 in 10 years from the Bristol Corporation Consolidated Loans Fund on which it paid an average of 3 per cent. less per annum than rate payers have to pay on money borrowed to lend it.
We have heard a lot about fair trading. To my mind that does not seem to be a good example of it. It seems that business men in Bristol are waxing fat on the backs of the ratepayers. This journal does not tell the true facts to the people of Bristol, and that is why the gentleman in question has to take out special advertisements.
To quote Mr. Bryant again on the question of costs, he says:
West Dock (Mark II) Original estimate, £12 million. Inflation at 25 per cent., £3 million. Contingencies, £1 million. Interest, £3 million, Total, £19 million.
That is already a long way off the original estimate of £12 million.
One has to consider next the question of equipment for the new docks. What about the amenity blocks which are so necessary under the provisions of the Devlin Report? The size of the road has to be doubled. There is the question of paving which has not been allowed for. All that I can do is to pity the poor ratepayers of Bristol.
Next there is the question of the tonnage. In 1965 it reached a peak of nearly 9 million tons, but now it is down to 7½ million. I have here Lloyd's List of 3rd June of this year, and in an article headed "Bristol port trade slumps" it says:
The Port of Bristol's trade in the last financial year dropped by more than 300,000 tons compared with the previous 12 months, the port authority was told today.
One would think that this would not be regarded as the most propitious time at which to engage in a vast expansion scheme, with trade dropping like that. We admire enthusiasm—that is one thing—but there seems to be an element of irresponsibility here, and much harm could be done in the process.
Lloyd's List of 26th November, under the bold headline,
Bristol and Avonmouth Docks. Port Authority makes first loss in 30 years,


said:
the shock news was released to members of the Docks Committee at a meeting in the boardroom of the P.B.A.'s headquarters on Avonmouth Docks.
I should have thought that that would give cause for concern and call for a period in which to think things over a little.
But that is not the whole situation, because it appears that there are certain technical difficulties in Bristol. I have yet another reference from Lloyd's List of the same date. Captain Anthony Gibbons, the haven master, said:
The trouble was sand waves. It became evident that if deep-draught ships were to approach early on the tide there might not be sufficient water for them even in mid-Channel.
The report continues:
The ever shifting waves of sand, some of them could be as high as 10 ft., were the cause of the trouble, said Captain Gibbons. Sometimes it was possible for them to cut the minimum depth of the approaches down to 34 ft. This could mean that a 25,000-ton ship might have to wait up to an hour after low water.
The committee eventually gave the go-ahead for a full survey to be made of the Channel annually and agreed that surveys should be made of the more critical areas every four months.
It seems to me that Bristol's optimism is full of shifting sands.

Mr. Coleman: Does my hon. Friend think that those conditions are conducive to the use of a port? Would shippers be prepared to use the port if their ships were continually going aground and their turn-round time was being lengthened considerably? Would he be prepared to comment on that?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. The journal from which I have quoted is the trade journal of shippers, which I am sure they read at breakfast every morning. This is an authoritative journal, and people who read it must be sceptical about this project.
I do not wish to pursue a vendetta against Bristol. I have always supported the Labour Government's policy that ports should be organised on the basis of public ownership so that investment policies can be properly co-ordinated. Towards the end of the last Parliament I spent 94 hours in Committee on the Ports

Bill, which the Conservative Party opposed every inch of the way. Unfortunately the General Election intervened, and that was a tragedy for our ports industry.
I invite the Minister to go to Bristol and put the true facts to the people there. Many people in Bristol are having second thoughts about this project. The Bristol Evening Post, which has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the West, asked in its leading article of 3rd June:
Will West Dock ever be built?
and went on to say:
…we fear it may never be built. Opinion is hardening that Bristol will have to get itself 'off the hook'.…West Dock should not now be built simply because the Conservatives have honoured a pledge not to stand in its way.
Circumstances have changed. Costs are escalating: what would have been £12 million is now £15 million and possibly £17 million by the time it is completed…
We urge the P.B.A. to take a careful look afresh, especially at the new trends in the trade, before making a final decision.
Those are my sentiments, too, and the message that should go out to Bristol from this House tonight is, think again.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I will not speak for more than a few moments. My excuse for doing so is two-fold. First, I have been long interested in this matter, and I remember giving an undertaking in Bristol that I would do my best to see that this scheme was prosecuted. I have believed in it and supported it from the beginning, and I did my utmost some time ago to interest senior friends of mine on these benches in the scheme, with the result that the then Leader of the Opposition gave the specific pledge to which the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) has just referred.
My second reason for intervening is that I badly want to comment upon the hon. Gentleman's speech. I tell him frankly that I strongly disagree with some of the things he said, and disagree equally strongly with the way in which he said them. I absolutely accept two points. First, he said—and he said he spoke honestly, and that is accepted—that he did not wish to pursue any kind of vendetta against the Port of Bristol. That is understood and accepted. Equally,


I hope that he will accept that persons like myself—and I do not represent a Bristol constituency—wish to pursue no kind of vendetta against the ports of South Wales, indeed, quite the reverse.
The story which the hon. Member for Newport told of the unemployment in these areas is a story which distresses us all. But I sympathise far more with the constructive attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) who spoke in suport of the Rill in telling terms in what was, with great respect, one of the best and most practical speeches I have heard in the House for a long time. He said that what he wanted to see and what Bristol wanted to see was an expansion of trade in the whole Bristol Channel. I am sure that is the right outlook to adopt, indeed it was a point which was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King).
The purpose here surely is to ensure by all means prosperity, happiness and health for the great city of Bristol, but also to ensure growing trade in the Bristol Channel as a whole. As the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) said in a telling interventiton, this is not a party matter. I speak tonight not as a Conservative but as a practical man and as a West Country man, and I will amplify both those points.
Speaking as a practical man, as I hope I am, if this scheme goes ahead, I do not believe that it will be in any way a disaster for the South Wales ports. I certainly do not believe that it will bring about closures of South Wales ports. Furthermore, on the subject of commercial viability, I am perfectly satisfied with the figures I have seen deployed. The figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred—D.C.F. and the rest—seem to me, speaking as an investor, to make very good sense. This is a proper investment for anyone to make at the present time.
There are other substantial arguments in the scheme's favour. Being a fair-minded man, would the hon. Gentleman really say, if he intends to oppose this proposal in the Division Lobby, that he does not want the Port of Bristol to replace its obsolescent equipment? That surely could neither be fair nor wise. Is he saying that the Port of Bristol has not done its homework effectively? From

all the information I have seen over a long period, it seems to me that it has done its homework extremely efficiently. Indeed, the obtaining of several reports from different consultants, the depth of investigation into the matter, the flexibility of the scheme and its economy prove precisely that the homework has been extremely well done. Learning as we do from the case advanced by my hon. Friend and by others that ship-owners will be saved money, that the cost of road haulage will be reduced and so on, does the hon. Gentleman, or anyone else, object to that? We spent the whole of Monday discussing the appalling rise in the cost of living. Reducing costs is surely a meritorious ambition to have for our nation.
Considering the volume of traffic going through the Port of Bristol at present, is it right that so little money should have been spent on the port in the past? I thought how moderate my hon. Friend was in not complaining that Bristol has suffered in the past because not enough money has been spent there. That is an answer to the point of cost made by the hon. Member for Newport.
I share his anxieties for his constituents. I admire his local patriotism, but do we really have adequate and sufficient port facilities for all time in the future? If I may again refer to Monday's debate, we were all asking, I no less than anyone else on these benches, for a degree of stimulus to be given to the economy. I repeat what I said then, that it is a crime when our people are out of work and when we have underutilised capacity. It is the anxiety of us all to see, particularly if we go into the Common Market, and even if we do not, that our economy expands. We cannot have too many efficient and effective ports.
I said that I would speak as a West Country man. I have a small quarrel with my hon. Friend about his otherwise excellent speech. He spoke so well about the possibilities for the Port of Bristol, and indeed the South Wales ports, of bringing down goods from Birmingham, the industrial Midlands, the North and London, but he failed to mention the tremendous significance that the development of the Port of Bristol will have for the West Country in general. We urgently


need that part to be developed. The rate of unemployment in Cornwall and some parts of Devon are just as great as they are in South Wales. We share a common problem, and it is in the interests of us all to have the best facilities possible to encourage a growing volume of trade in this country.
The hon. Member for Newport and his hon. Friends will wish, very properly, to do their utmost for their areas. Do, I beg them, allow us to do the utmost in what we believe to be the national interest and perhaps the interests of the West Country. I hope that they will not think it right to pursue their opposition to this practical constructive Measure too far tonight.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), who spoke with his usual determination on this subject, said that he believed in the public ownership of ports. So do I, and, of course, Bristol is a publicly-owned port. I believe I am right in saying that it is the largest municipal trading enterprise in the country. When he quotes the relatively minor business figure of Mr. Terry Bryant in aid of his case, he should think of those considerable figures of the Labour movement in Bristol who have given so much to building up the Port of Bristol Authority. The present Chairman is a Conservative, Councillor Wright, but the Chairman for many years was a greatly respected Socialist in Bristol, Alderman Arthur Parish.

Mr. McBride: I had supposed that we were not arguing on party political lines. This is an economic argument, but I have heard no economic thesis advanced.

Mr. Palmer: I have hardly got three sentences out—give me an opportunity. I entirely agree, but I am just taking up, quite fairly, the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport: He quotes, for all I know, a member of the Monday Club, though I know nothing of his politics, in aid of his argument. I am saying that the Bristol Labour movement and many respected Labour figures in Bristol who have given greater service to the Port of Bristol Authority, are on record as supporting the West Dock scheme. I was anxious

to preserve a political balance but I would now much prefer to move to the arguments.
I took part in the debate when Mr. Richard Marsh was the Minister of Transport. On that occasion we lost the debate in the sense that we were outvoted. I thought that a pity, and I expressed my opinion through the channels to which I had access—that it was a pity the Whips were put on on that occasion. But looking back through the record of that debate, no one would say that we were out-argued. The substantial reason why the Minister turned it down on that occasion was not wasteful use of resources, but because, as he said, the rate of return on the capital proposed to be employed was not high enough. But he conceded then that if national circumstances had been a little easier, marginally there was not much in it and Bristol would have had the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my hon. Friend saying that the economic situation is now better?

Mr. Palmer: No, I certainly do not think that it is now better. But on that occasion the Minister did not turn it down because it was a wasteful use of resources but because of the return on capital on his calculations. This is a modified scheme compared with the earlier scheme.
On the previous occasion, I thought that the decision had been influenced by some pressure from South Wales; quite legitimate pressure, but it influenced the decision. Also there was possibly influence from other ports, including London.
The speech of my hon. Friend gives support to the view that South Wales remains irreconcilable, bringing all the pressure that it can against the further development of Bristol. I do not complain about that, but they are wrong and badly wrong. I say that with the greatest sincerity. Bristol, by keeping port facilities up to date, by resisting obsolescence, which one must do all the time, and by modernising, contributes to the prosperity of Severnside generally. That cannot be doubted.
I am sure that my hon. Friend has studied the recent report on Severnside and upon its future development. In


years to come, both the Welsh and the Saxon shores of Severnside will be growth areas. Severnside can hope to grow without any stimulation to 60,000 people by the turn of the century; with stimulation and planned development, which I should prefer to see, the growth rate would be up to 1 million extra. In those circumstances, need we fear because we are passing through a recession? I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government are mainly responsible for it, but I cannot believe that it will last for ever; I hope not. The prosperity of Severnside in the long run is bound to be linked with that of the country generally and when the prosperity of the country revives, so will Severside's prosperity. There is plenty of room for all to grow and to prosper without these small rivalries that should properly belong to the past.
The point has not so far been made that surely the trade of the Welsh ports as against Bristol, even on the present basis, is largely complementary in terms of commodities. Coal, iron, steel, and tinplate; those are the substances which come out of Wales. With Bristol it is grain, fertilisers and wood pulp. As the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Du Cann) said, these products in part serve the agriculture of the South-West generally. With commodities and trade the two sides of the Channel are largely complementary. With planned and organised development in the future they could continue to be complementary. On timber there may be some coincidence of interest, but South-Wales has been winning with timber, so in spite of the difficulties that the Welsh ports appear to have, they have perhaps successfully taken some timber trade away from Bristol.
Earlier I deliberately used the word "modernising" of the Port of Bristol, rather than the extension of it. It involves some extension, but it is mainly modernisation; it is also maintenance in a sense. It is the best way in which to consider what is proposed. The present scheme is different from the earlier one. It is a very moderate scheme. On the first cost it will be less. My hon. Friend referred to the effects of inflation, but inflation applies to everything and not just to this item of expenditure. In first cost this is very much a modified scheme,

and it takes account of container operations in a way that the earlier West Dock scheme did not. Also, there are to be no elaborate warehouses or other dock facilities of that kind. It is intended that those using the docks will provide these facilities for themselves. In short, the scheme takes account of the changing methods of port operation.
If we do not implement the scheme in Bristol, Bristol will fall back. My hon. Friend was very concerned about the Bristol ratepayers. Many of us are concerned about them, and they are very concerned about us, too. But I should have thought that the Bristol rates are primarily a matter for the citizens of Bristol, who have to pay them. Unless one takes the view that all port planning must be done centrally—no nationalised industry takes that view when planning its resources—one must leave this question to those who manage the Bristol port, who are responsible, being elected representatives, directly to the electors. The Bill only applies for powers, and it is for Bristol, having the powers, to use them as it considers right.
As I say, I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his concern about Bristol's finances. There is plenty of healthy controversy in Bristol over costs and over rates. This will continue between the parties. They are united on the principle, but they will certainly argue on the costs. The estimated rate of return has been given, and one can always argue about rates of return. But with this kind of work and activity, one often has to provide the facilities in the first place and then to hope and to work for the trade to take advantage of them. One cannot always do it the other way round by market estimation and all the rest. There must be an element of faith in the future. I do not see why we should apologise for having faith.

Mr. Alan Williams: When public investment capital is a scarce national resource and there are many competing demands for it, is it not legitimate to use whatever meaningful criteria are available to decide between the most suitable investment projects? This is why the country cannot afford utterly to ignore this consideration.

Mr. Palmer: That argument is not unfamiliar to me. It is an argument


well known to economists. I am an engineer by profession. My difficulty is that I am a victim of economists. The economic experts can be wrong on these things. It is necessary to have faith in the future and to be optimistic. We should do our sums but should not be misled by them as certainties to the future.
The National Ports Council has approved the scheme, as it approved the earlier scheme. The present Minister has given the scheme his approval, and I am obliged to him for that. I only wish Mr. Richard Marsh had given his permission. I think he made a great mistake in not doing so.
I accept the sincerity of my Welsh friends but Bristol has been patient, going back to the first Portbury scheme when the City Council was Labour-controlled. We have been patient over the years. We have been painstaking, also! In these circumstances, it is hard to see that we can be refused approval for the Bill tonight. I suggest that the House should give Bristol authority to proceed with this Measure, knowing that Bristol has a great past and, certainly in the view of us who are proud to represent the city, a great future as well.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I intervene in the debate for two reasons. First, as a West Country Member my constituency of Chippenham is directly affected by the future prosperity of Bristol, Second, I have an interest in national transport policy. For both reasons, I feel strongly that the Bill should receive a Second Reading.
I imagine that hon. Members on both sides have studied the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee in another place in March of this year, when the Bill was discussed for over a week. As I read the evidence through, I became completely persuaded that an overwhelming case had been made out. It is not easy to summarise the case in a ten-minute speech.
Bristol has reached a point of historic decision. As the Chairman of the Port of Bristol Authority said in answer to the Select Committee:
After 1,000 years of development by our citizens our port now stands at the crossroads. in my Council's view all the economic and

technical evidence shows that it must either develop or it must decline. It cannot continue into the future indefinitely in its present state.
Hon. Members opposite who are opponents of the scheme may well ask why Bristol must have a new dock; why not simply improve and modernise the existing facilities? The answer is simple. A new dock is easier, it is better, and in the long run it would be cheaper. This view has been supported by the National Ports Council. I quote from what it said in its letter to the Minister dated 8th August, 1970, part of which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren):
We accordingly accept that a new dock on a new site is the only sensible way to proceed, despite the fact that because of the necessity for a new lock, the scheme is relatively expensive as compared with cases where an existing lock can be utilised or as compared with those where it is possible to proceed piecemeal. Fortunately, in the West Dock scheme the effect of the initial investment in the lock on the economics of the scheme, has been moderated by the employment of new techniques of lock and quay wall construction, resulting in the scheme comparing favourably in terms of cost per linear foot of quay with other schemes considered by the Council.
Therefore, the Ports Council is thoroughly behind the scheme.
I can summarise the letter by saying that modernisation now is not enough. A new scheme is required. Bristol has spent on the average over £1 million a year during the last ten years trying to modernise the facilities. Surely there comes a time when modernising existing facilities is no longer a practical proposition. That time has now come. Indeed, I believe that it came six years ago. No wonder that there is a great sense of frustration in the City of Bristol today.
The Portbury scheme, costing £28 million, was turned down in 1966, but what the Labour Government said to Bristol at that time was, "Go away and think again, and produce a smaller scheme". This Bristol did, and in 1967 a considerably smaller scheme costing nearly £15 million was put forward. On that occasion, the National Ports Council supported it. A Bill passed through the other place. Then the Minister, as we have been reminded today, refused his consent and the Bill was defeated in this House.
Now, on this third occasion, a new scheme has been produced. Consulting


engineers and international management consultants have been brought in. This time, the Minister, as well as the National Ports Council, supports the scheme. The Select Committee of the other place supported it, having listened to all the objections from the various petitioners.
I feel that it would be tragic if the House of Commons did not give the Bill a Second Reading tonight. I realise, of course, that the cost is large—£12 million—but one must remember that it is to be spread over a 50-year period, and it is expected to show a return of about 12 per cent., or possibly more. I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) that these figures are somewhat speculative—I am not an economist either—but the experts say that there will be a reasonable return on the money over the period.
Two points of national rather than local significance should be emphasised. Both have been touched on already. First, there is the question of roads. Bristol is at the intersection of the M4 and M5, which give access to the Midlands and to London. I am glad to say—or, rather, I hope—that the M4 will be open to London within a year. We have been pressing for it long enough in my area. This will be of tremendous importance because good communications are vital to the future of a port.
The consultants estimate that the reduced cost of road haulage, compared with Tilbury, Southampton or Liverpool, could be £200,000 a year This is a large and significant figure, and they estimate also that the cost of delays caused by congestion in the berths would be greatly reduced.

Mr. McBride: I think that the hon. Gentleman is inadvertently misleading the House. In the evidence before the Select Committee in the other place, it was not said that £200,000 would be saved. The consultants' report said that £200,000 could be saved, and there is an air of the problematical about it.

Mr. Awdry: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the question of road haulage or of congestion in the berths?

Mr. McBride: The figure of £200,000 came in both cases.

Mr. Awdry: What was said before the Select Commitee was that if one could cut 50 per cent. off the delay caused by congestion in the berths, this was calculated to save another £200,000 on top of the £200,000 referred to on the road haulage point. If that be right, the figures capitalised over a period of 20 years would produce a saving of over £3 million, a considerable sum, which would go quite a long way towards paying for the whole scheme.
Bristol has not been a lavish spender in recent years. It handles 2½ per cent. of all traffic tonnage and during the last few years has averaged only 1½ per cent. of total capital expenditure. It seems not inequitable, therefore, that it should now go forward with this scheme. No one could complain that Bristol was receiving exceptional or preferential treatment.
The citizens and the council of Bristol have never varied since 1963 in their desire for a major development, whatever political party has for the time being been in power. They feel that this scheme is vital to the prosperity of Bristol and of the whole region. As a Wiltshireman, I am, naturally, concerned that the wealth of the South-West Region should expand. If that is to happen. New industries must grow throughout the region. Obviously, these new industries will require raw materials, some of them imported. These new industries will need to export, and many industries in my own constituency now have a fine export record.
The whole South-West Region needs a successful port of Bristol. This debate is, therefore, crucial to the future not only of Bristol but of all the people who live in the South-West Region.

Mr. Alan Williams: When I went to Bristol on an official visit a few years ago, I was told that of the total exports passing out of Bristol and its area only one-third were exported via the port of Bristol and that other ports were used. That suggests that the scheme is not all that essential to the prosperity of the area does it not?

Mr. Awdry: The answer is that over the coming years Bristol will indeed be used on an increasing scale by many new industries in the area. The hon. Gentleman may well be right when he speaks of the past, and I do not dispute his


figure, but I know that firms in my constituency will welcome an expanding and successful port in Bristol. Bristol has made out its case tonight and I shall be relieved and delighted when the Bill receives its Second Reading.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Neil McBride: Before coming to the main argument, I wish to refer to the statement issued above the signature of the agents for the promoters which was sent to hon. Members today. ' It says:
It is also submitted that the merits of the Bill raise issues which cannot conveniently be discussed in detail on the Floor of the House.
I considered whether to raise that as a point of order, since there is an impertinent inference in the statement. If the Bill is not discussed in detail here the effect on the South Wales ports and the Welsh nation will not be known. It is an impertinent assumption of arrogance by the promoters, ignoring the importance of discussion on the Floor of the House. That will be apparent to no one more than to the Minister.
My counter-submission is made as of right and in logic, that the House is a national forum where the Bill can be discussed openly and clearly. Any other course would deny the objectors their inalienable right to be heard.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am certain that that statement is not intended in any way to be impertinent or to take away the right of the House to discuss the Bill for as long as it cares. The point the circular is trying to make is that what we are deciding is a matter of principle as to whether the Bill should proceed. The detailed consideration of any Bill, line by line and Clause by Clause, takes place in Committee, as the hon. Gentleman must know after all the years he has sat in the House. The circular is referring to the detail. We are deciding the principle as to whether the Bill should be given a Second Reading, and nobody is suggesting that we should not.

Mr. McBride: When I want a lesson in parliamentary procedure the hon. Gentleman is the last person I shall go to. No statements of that kind should be made on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is impertinent of the promoters'

agents to say that. I have the right to say so, and I hold to it.
We quarrel with the statement in lines 10–13 of the Preamble, because we believe that it is not expedient that the Corporation of Bristol should be empowered to construct the new dock and other works authorised by the Bill if it is passed. The project will be injurious to South Wales and its ports, and therefore it is not expedient, because the facilities on the Welsh side of the Bristol Channel are not being fully utilised.
It will be necessary to contest many of the financial assumptions and the whole question of expending £12 million on what I believe to be redundant port capacity at Bristol. I am probably the only hon. Member who has worked in the docks of this country. Therefore, I can say that I know something about the subject. I shall contest the provisions of Clause 31. My argument is that harm will ensue to the viability of the South Wales ports, with special reference to the port of Swansea, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and myself. I oppose the Bill on the grounds that hardship will ensue to the port. The continued viability of a seaport is of paramount interest to all who live and work in a city such as Swansea. I oppose on the grounds that Swansea's trading prospects will be damaged if the proposal is brought to fruition.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that Swansea has already suffered from the competition with Bristol in that the Imperial Smelting Works in Swansea has been closed in favour of keeping open the works in the Bristol area?

Mr. McBride: My hon. Friend is quite right. I speak with feeling, because that involved the closing down of the zinc smelter in my constituency, which we established nearly one hundred years ago, and 680 jobs were lost in order that the work could go to the smelting works owned by the Imperial Smelting Corporation at Avonmouth. It will be appreciated that I have a great deal of personal feeling on this subject. I will oppose the Bill on the ground that its financial projections are unsoundly based and that £12 million is not a realistic figure for a project of this nature.
I oppose it on the ground that the project is too highly speculative and that in giving approval to the raising of the money the Government were motivated by political considerations, and no one knows that better than the Minister, in that the decision was reached not on economic grounds, but as a political sub to Bristol for a promise was made before the election, and I leave the political content there.
I oppose it on the ground that public opinion in Swansea is solidly behind opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. I quote an editorial in the South Wales Evening Post of 7th January when the leader writer said:
It is abundantly clear that the Bristol proposal, if it succeeds, could seriously affect the trade of the South Wales ports as a whole. Suggestions that the Government is politically committed to allowing the scheme to go through should not be permitted to stand in the way of wholehearted opposition.
That is clear and definitive.
A leader in a Bristol paper which I have never seen before, the Western Daily Press, says today that Bristol is the port closest to the Americas; so did the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren). He must be speaking from geographical expediency to say that, because Swansea is the nearest, and if he looks at a map, he will see it proved. Allowing for the extra distance from Swansea to Bristol and remembering that a tide may be missed on the way, shipping to and from Bristol could mean taking another day each way. This is a harsh lesson of economics.

Mr. McLaren: I had in mind the major ports.

Mr. McBride: The late Edgar Wallace was a master of imagination and he had an apt pupil in the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West.
We know the opinion of the council and people of Swansea, who have never been afraid of fair competition, but who feel that in this matter a decision has been reached injurious to the prospects of the city and all the South Wales ports. The Bill is promoted by the lord mayor, aldermen and burgesses of Bristol. The response of the ratepayers of the city of Bristol at the two statutory meetings promoted by the council has been less than enthusiastic. The first meeting, on 12th December, last year, was postponed because

the weather was inclement. When the meeting was held subsequently, out of a population of 427,238, 88 ratepayers attended. The burning enthusiasm for the proposal is tremendous! When a vote was taken, 83 to three were in favour of the proposal. That can hardly be described as overwhelming support for the project.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is not the gross tonnage handled by Bristol just over seven million while that handled by Swansea is considerably more?

Mr. McBride: The Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment will recall my initiating an Adjournment debate when I said that Swansea handled over eight million tons. We should like to better that. We have the highly professional management, the workers and the facilities—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) may make his speech later; until then he should keep quiet. I am reminded of a saying that good manners are for the Labour Party and not the Tory Party, and the hon. Gentleman is ample proof of that.
The council committee dealing with the matter is trading as the Bristol Port Authority. It has powers delegated to it from the council, but these powers do not include financial matters and matters relating to property, and that is important. The powers do not include financial matters. Trade through Bristol is declining. One admires people who are trying to achieve increased trade. This is referred to in the evidence given before the House of Lords Select Committee in March.
But, in all the arguments adduced tonight, nothing has been said about the economic argument. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West skated clear of it. He knew that he had no case. He could not say that it was sound or logical economically to promote the facts relevant to this matter. He dodged the issue.

Mr. McLaren: Mr. McLaren rose—

Mr. McBride: I will give way later.
Bristol has been less than just in this matter. The hon. Member for Chippenham made no reference to the economic argument. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who is expert in financial matters, did not say that he would invest in the project. Advice is


cheap but investment is another thing. The cost of the dock—

Mr. Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman has referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). If the hon. Gentleman will study HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that my right hon. Friend said that this was a sound and good investment into which he would advise anybody to put money.

Mr. McBride: The hon. Gentleman is truthful and I do not doubt what he says. But the right hon. Member for Taunton did not say how much he would invest in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask him."] I will if he returns to the Chamber.
The cost of the dock is estimated at £12 million, but it is believed that in the final accounting it will be much more. But the costs do not include the financial outlay involved in providing the superstructure and equipment for the dock. That is clear from Clause 31 dealing with the funding arrangements. No provision has been made in the estimate for the cost of transit sheds and cargo-handling equipment, and this additional financial load must be added to the £12 million which the Government have given permission to be raised, plus escalation and plus interest servicing of the loan. The citizens of Bristol will be saddled with a heavy burden for years to come.
Is the Bristol City Council naive in the extreme to suppose that shipowners will scream with delight at a dock minus equipment and devoid of handling equipment and transit sheds with no storage warehouses? This is what it is asking money for—to build just a dock. In my opinion, shipowners will view the prospect with great distaste.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that a singular inconsistency in the argument is that the superstructure provision cannot be made until it is known precisely what quantity and type of trade there will be, and yet hon. Members opposite say that it is possible to do a meaningful D.C.F. because they can predict what quantity and type of trade there will be.

Mr. McBride: That is an important point. I shall later quote the statement

of a municipal treasurer of 33 years' experience which bears out precisely what my hon. Friend said. There is a high degree of hypothesis in the claims of the promoters of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) mentioned a saving of £200,000 per annum. This is in the realm of the problematical. He mentioned road haulage. It has been said that the motorway network could be worth another £200,000 per annum and that the net value to industry and shipowners is £3·4 million at 10 per cent. over 20 years. It is held to be a saving to the nation, but Bristol has yet to obtain the traffic and the operation of the dock and there is no financial superstructure prior to the commencement of the business operation. Is there anyone here from the business world who would say that that is a sound, logical argument to put in a prospectus? No one.
The moneys for this project are to be raised in the open market or will be found through the consolidated loans fund of the City of Bristol, but there is a clear risk here to investors, as there is no industrial expansion in the neighbourhood of the dock site. I consider that the first requisite of success in a venture of this description is the presence or at least the promise of a large industrial concentration in the vicinity of a site such as this. These arguments are fully borne out in the volumes of evidence to the Select Committee in the House of Lords.
If the City of Bristol is to go to the open market, Swansea, Newport, Barry require capital, and it must be remembered that these undertakings are owned by the British Transport Docks Board—publicly owned—and none of these undertakings is able to go to the ratepayers to raise money. Therefore, the approval by the Government of Bristol's raising £12 million plus the additional moneys required is an unfair advantage to Bristol in this connection. What is more, I cannot resist the remark that the Tory Government do not like publicly-owned enterprise. It is inevitable that, should the Bill be passed, there will be long periods for repayment of moneys raised by the citizens of Bristol.
The question is posed: will the new dock pay? We have heard the assertion that it will. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West said so. He had no facts to


give about that; he led none to the House.

Mr. McLaren: The hon. Member accuses me of having dodged the economic issue. He will remember that I stated that this project had been studied by expert consultants in all its aspects, and that they are sure, in their professional opinion, that the rate of return would be between 12 per cent. and 16 per cent. That is regarded as a satisfactory figure. As the hon. Member is also speaking about public enterprise, I remind him that we are discussing a public enterprise, the Port of Bristol Authority.

Mr. McBride: Not an enterprise owned by the nation. As to the first point made by the hon. Member, that it is highly satisfactory that 12 per cent. to 16 per cent. would accrue, surely he realises that this is disputed by highly reputable financial authorities?

Mr. Adley: Who are they? Name them.

Mr. McBride: We come now to the size of ships which go to the port of Bristol. There are zinc concentrates coming from Australia. This new dock is to accommodate ships of 65,000 tons, but the ships which bring in the zinc concentrates from Australia cannot be larger than 17,000 tons as the Australian sources of zinc cannot take larger ships. Then there is phosphate rock, which comes to Bristol from Africa in 15,000-ton ships, which is the largest size of ship which the dock facilities can take, but when it comes from Florida the size of ship is 30,000 tons, which is the maximum size in the Florida Keys. Despite this, Bristol Dock Committee seeks to construct a dock for 65,000-ton ships.
The new dock, it is hoped, will yield a quick return, but what the promoters have failed to say is that the dock will be in competition with the main bulk carrier ports of the United Kingdom. This is borne out in volume 3, page 25, of the evidence given in the House of Lords. Therefore accuracy in the estimation of the financial return is of first importance.
We now come to the question of Bristol's estimate of the money to be paid for the loan. Bristol says that through its consolidated loans fund it will pay an average rate of 6495 per cent. for this

money. But that is the average struck for all interest servicing of all Bristol's loans. The depreciation of interest is caused by many factors, one of which is the servicing of £2 million carried on at 3 per cent. It is a mere book-keeping transaction. The true position as at 31st March last, with new money borrowed for this project, is that Bristol would have to pay 9½ per cent. on the open market and that the £12 million would be borrowed on that basis.
The initial assertion that 6·495 per cent. is all that will be paid is made because the money to be raised as capital for the new dock is merged with capital accounts on other funds such as housing and education. It has been clearly established that Bristol, if wishing to establish the viability of this project, will seek to claim to be described as a container port; but it will never be a large container port. It seeks to take in containers and forward the goods to other ports by rail.
In another direction the claim is made that Bristol Corporation, should a new dock be constructed, would make a saving of £9 million in the first 25 years, plus another £5 million on its other installations. That cannot be done. Mr. Stanley William Hill, in his evidence before the House of Lords Select Committee, commented on this. Mr. Hill, who is by profession a municipal treasurer, has 37 years' experience as financial adviser to local authorities. In the light of that statement, one must query the accuracy and soundness of the theory that Bristol will be saving £14 million by an investment of £12 million. Much of the case for the Bill is based on an estimate of traffic such as grain and molasses for a period of 50 years ahead. But economists hesitate to predict for more than five years ahead. They will tell you that to do so is guesswork. Economists in this House will, I am sure, say that. Yet Bristol makes this estimate to the House of Lords Select Committee, and it is wrong. It is sheer speculation beyond the period I have mentioned. The estimate is based on high dock due paying categories of goods. Mr. Hill suggests that the estimate should be cut by one-third, and he is a financial expert.
This is not the first proposal made for a dock extension. I opposed the initial one. It, too, met considerable opposition from the South Wales ports. We in


Swansea are interested. We have a first-class port which could become, with Government capital, a first-class continental port, a Europort. The threat to the trade and, therefore, to the life of the community in Swansea is very real. It is the job of my hon. Friends and myself to put this to the House and to oppose the Bill. One must emphasise that the prosperity of a seaport city such as Swansea must impinge on the life of everyone at some point. That is one of the reasons why Swansea City Council opposes the proposals contained in the Bill. It follows, therefore, that we in South Wales oppose the Bill. Reading through the evidence given to the Select Committee, there can be no doubt that the threat exists and is menacing to the future viability of Swansea. We must ask ourselves whether there is going to be an increase in trade in the Bristol Channel area in the foreseeable future. With the South Wales ports working hard to attract new traffic, are the facilities going to be used to the full?

Mr. Emery: I understand the apparent fear of Swansea Members in wanting to defend the trading rights of their own port. However, I do not understand their argument as a matter of logic. Outward trade in the Swansea Docks is in a ratio of six-to-one. That outward trade totals 6·6 million a year, 95 per cent. of which is made up of iron and steel, coal, coke briquettes and bunker traffic. What proportion of that trade does the hon. Gentleman see being lost to a new or extended Bristol dock?

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Member is making a speech.

Mr. Emery: If the right hon. Gentleman, that great financial genius, will keep quiet, I shall sit down much more quickly. All I am saying is that I cannot understand Swansea's fear that it will lose 85 per cent. of its business because of anything that might happen in Bristol.

Mr. McBride: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) is himself a genius in the manner in which he makes his lengthy interruptions. We are seriously concerned since we have lost our inward trade of nickel and zinc concentrates. We have a very real fear that if there is

only a certain amount of trade and there is an ensuing price war, South Wales will suffer. The new dock at Bristol will compete for the existing trade. If Bristol is unable to get its share of trade, then Bristol will engage in a trade battle with the South Wales ports. The situation is as clear as it can be. This was mentioned before the Select Committe in another place and was not contested. One of the witnesses said that this was inevitable.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the whole crux of the South Wales case is that our ports are under-used? The attack on the South Wales ports would be in relation to their existing trade and the trade which we are trying to secure from the Midlands and the South-East. This is where the competition from Bristol would be felt.

Mr. McBride: If Bristol were unable to get its fair share of trade, then a price cutting war would ensue, and I agree with my hon. Friend that the facilities in the South Wales ports are being underused. We believe that the margin of profit and loss in the South Wales ports is small, and this is undeniably true of Swansea. The viability of Swansea has also been harmed by the Government's new rating proposals. Competition in a fair way is to be welcomed, but competition from the new complex at Bristol—helped by an unfair subsidy in the sense that a subvention can be obtained from the city of Bristol rates, which is not the situation in regard to the Swansea docks—is unfair and unnecessary. The success of the Bristol project will inevitably mean great loss to the other ports.
I share the regret expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is not present. The petitioners before the House of Lords Select Committee were Swansea, Newport and Barry.
I share the resentment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) at the fact that no member of the Welsh Office has seen fit to be present. I appreciate that the Minister for Transport Industries is a West Country man. However, in view of the importance of this matter to the whole South Wales seaboard, a Welsh Minister should have been present, and I join


with my hon. Friends in voicing my disappointment at the lack of representation of the Welsh Office.

Mr. Adley: This is a Bristol Bill. So far, only two out of the six of us have had a chance to speak. If the hon. Gentleman would spend less time attacking his Welsh colleagues, he would give others of us a chance to contribute to the debate.

Mr. McBride: I am not attacking my Welsh colleagues. In any event, providing that I keep within the rules of order, I shall present the case as the Welsh see it and not as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) wishes to put it.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it normal for the Chair to call Members alternately according to whether they support or oppose the project under discussion? We have made no complaint about the disproportionate number of hon. Members speaking in support of the Bill. We accept that hon. Members presenting Bristol constituencies have the right to speak. However, the position verges on the impossible when an hon. Member attempts to deny the rights of what is only the second speech in opposition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The Chair tries to be fair to both sides and to all shades of opinion. But sometimes it is difficult to collect the various shades of opinion, especially when they cut across the parties. The Chair does its best.

Mr. Roy Hughes: My hon. Friend has complained about the Welsh Ministers not being present. Is not he aware that there is a by-election in progress and that the Secretary of State for Wales is Chairman of the Conservative Party? Does not my hon. Friend feel that the right hon. Gentleman should get his priorities right?

Mr. McBride: Yes, I do. The by-election had slipped my mind. Unlike me, the right hon. Gentleman has not a single Welsh vote which sends him to this House.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East, complained about my presentation

of the Welsh argument. I remind him that this project creates a situation where one side of the Bristol Channel is in opposition to the other.
The right hon. Member for Taunton is here. I understand that he has said that people should invest in Bristol. However, I believe that he only advised other people to invest, and that he will not be investing himself. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that.
The fear is prevalent in Swansea and other South Wales ports that the decision to allow Bristol to raise £12 million on the open market is not based on any evidence showing an honest estimate of a reasonable return on the capital invested in the project as defined in the Bill. In another context, the decision is purely political and takes no account of the impost which will have to be shouldered by the citizens of Bristol. It ignores the fact that Bristol's hinterland is quite inadequate to support the project as it has been planned. Evidence led in the other place showed clearly that all the estimates of earnings of the new dock beyond five years were totally meaningless and pure speculation. The project would be built on the shifting sands of speculation. For that reason alone, it must be unsound.
Today, we see a massive and swift change in the types of ships engaged in maritime trade. This applies to all countries engaged in this trade. Is is to be held as evidenced fact that progress in ship construction must wait for Bristol? We all know that the answer is "No". Bristol has no control over the sizes and types of ships using the Bristol Channel, now or in the future. The future ship probably will not be a vessel of 65,000 tons, but something bigger, lying in deep water, to which smaller ships will be sent to off-load the cargo.
I mentioned this possibility in the course of my Adjournment Debate on the future potential of Swansea Docks. There are more practical grounds to support this than exist to support the viability of the Bristol West Dock scheme as defined in the Bill. The Bristol scheme envisages ships of 65,000 tons. However, with container ships and bulk carriers, the world shipping trade is such that the Bristol project is a non-starter.
Then again, is it in the national interest to spend this money on the Bristol project? In my view, the South Wales ports clearly have the right to say that they have an interest in this regard. They are modern in techniques and equipment, and public money has been invested in them. Is that money now to be wasted? Proceeding with the Bristol project would be a prime example of a waste of public money. It would also ignore the national interest. Swansea is conscious of and appreciates the modernisation of the docks and equipment owned by the British Transport Docks Board and the highly professional management of the Port of Swansea. Must we set all this at risk by the possibility of a trade war caused by a cutting of the rates with the establishment of the new dock in Bristol? If permission is granted for raising the money the project will be a negation of all the rules of business and will be a purely political decision.
Swansea City Council's standing in the matter was questioned in another place, as was mine only a short time ago. Swansea has an important interest, and clearly the nation has an interest. The best interests of all will be served by rejecting the Bill.

9.16 p.m.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): It might be of some help to the House if I intervene at this stage.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) has spoken at length and with conviction about the Tightness of his cause. I doubt whether he has been able to convince those on the other side of the argument that he has justice with him. Towards the end of his speech he observed that a good deal of public money had been invested in the South Wales ports. No one would wish to contest that. One of the arguments put forward by those who believe that Bristol should at least get a fair crack of the whip is that it is Bristol's turn now.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Peyton: No. I do not wish to speak at great length, because a number of hon. Members whose constituencies are deeply involved wish to speak, and the hon. Member for Swansea, East has just

taken a considerable time. I should at least like to launch into the few remarks I want to make.
The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), in a somewhat un-neigh-bourly speech, gave the impression that he was separated from Bristol by a great deal more distance than merely the Bristol Channel. I appreciate that he feels strongly for his constituents in this matter, but I believe that he might have observed the need to hold a balance of fairness. Bristol, an ancient city with a long tradition of being a port, is entitled to have its views weighed. There is a feeling, just as strong as anything expressed by the hon. Gentleman, that Bristol has claim to public attention now.
I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) who said that Bristol had done its work on this project, and he recommended it as a good investment.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) drew attention to the patience which had been displayed by Bristol. I should like to acknowledge the determination which has been shown by Bristol, and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Northwest (Mr. McLaren), who has shown an unswerving determination to lose no opportunity to forward Bristol's cause. As he said, this is Bristol's third attempt to achieve some valuable and meaningful progress. I doubt whether any scheme has been so thoroughly grilled as this one. First, there was the original Portbury scheme which was turned down; secondly there was the first version of the West Dock scheme, which was again rejected; and, finally, there is this second version of the West Dock scheme.
Happily, some technical improvements have considerably improved the position, and whereas there was an estimated return on capital of between 2¾ per cent. and 4½ per cent. in the first version, at a cost of £14¾ million, we now have a considerably improved situation, with the cost being £12 million, and a return on capital, which has been fairly well checked over by consultants, of between 12 per cent. and 16 per cent. The National Ports Council has taken a more cautious view and suggested that perhaps the return will be between 8 per cent. and 14 per cent., but nevertheless one which, in its view, fully justifies the project.
I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) intends to take part in the debate. At the moment, he is engaged in earnest conversation with his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall that the Administration of which he was a member, in its 1966 White Paper, invited the National Ports Council to consider alternatives to the Portbury scheme. The first version of the West Dock scheme was somewhat suspect. It is the second version that we are now considering, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that the proposition which has been put forward deserves the serious consideration of himself and anybody else who speaks for his party.

Mr. George Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the overwhelming economic advice to the previous Administration was against approving the scheme, and that is why Dick Marsh, as the Minister responsible, announced his decision to the House.

Mr. Peyton: I have no idea what economic advice was tendered to the previous Administration. I may be left with the inevitable, unavoidable possibility of concluding that the advice was bad. But the point here—and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have missed this, but he was deeply wrapped up in a discussion with his hon. Friend—is that since the first West Dock scheme there has been a considerable improvement in the economic prospects of this project, and I repeat the figures which I gave to the House a moment ago.
Whereas under the first scheme there was a cost of £14¾ million, and an estimated yield of between 2¾ per cent. and 4½ per cent., we are now faced with something quite different, a cost of just over £12 million, and a return on capital of between 12 per cent. and 16 per cent. It is true that the National Ports Council has modified the estimate—

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not have a copy of the Bill, but I understand that we are dealing with the possible expenditure of £12 million. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the project will cost over £12 million. This is of great importance to the House.

Exactly what are we being asked to approve?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Peyton: I do not think the hon. Gentleman would wish to be weighed by that sort of point.
The point that I am making is that there is an expenditure of about £12 million, which is a reduction from the first scheme, with an estimated return of between 12 per cent. and 16 per cent. The National Ports Council, being more prudent, has estimated the return at between 8 per cent. and 14 per cent., but it is nevertheless one which, in the opinion of the Government, warrants proceeding with the scheme.
I speak as no partisan tonight. It is only fair that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who very properly represent the interests and anxieties of South Wales—and I accept that these are genuine anxieties—should also understand that Bristol has a view here. Bristol is faced with the situation that the city docks are far up the river, inaccessible and a source of loss, and that Avonmouth has no possibility for expansion. Avonmouth Docks suffer considerable congestion, to a degree which is bound to turn the customers and the users away. This is a stern choice for a city with a long history in the operation of a great port—

Mr. Roy Hughes: Mr. Roy Hughes rose—

Mr. Peyton: I am sorry, I am in the middle of my speech. This is a stern choice for Bristol. Bristol faces either a long period of expensive obsolescence or, alternatively, it will make up its mind to go forward, as it is convinced that the economics of the project offers it an opportunity of doing.
In my view, facing the issue as I did, there were two grounds for refusing. One was that the scheme could not possibly pay its way. I do not believe for one moment that I would have been justified in coming to that conclusion. The second ground was that for some special reason it would be contrary to the public interest. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have sought to suggest that this development is peculiarly contrary to the interests of the South Wales ports. I do not believe


they have succeeded in proving this point. The prosperity of the Bristol Channel and a successful development of this kind will not necessarily destroy the South Wales ports. Far from it. It could even be complementary to the prosperity of South Wales, and the generation of extra traffic in the Bristol Channel could be a source of advantage for all.
I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the project was not opposed on this occasion by the British Transport Docks Board. I will say a word on the subject of uneconomic price cutting, which is thought to be a real fear—

Mr. Roy Hughes: Mr. Roy Hughes rose—

Mr. Peyton: I am sorry, I cannot give way—

Mr. Roy Hughes: Everybody else has given way.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member made a 35-minute speech.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman has caused others to give way to him a great deal.

Mr. McBride: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Another hon. Member who spoke for 35 minutes.

Mr. McBride: The right hon. Gentleman was speaking about moneys in excess of £11,900,000 as authorised under the terms of the Bill. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Clause 31, lines 20 to 35. The sum authorised under paragraph (b) is £11,900,000. Under paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) reference is made only to "the sum requisite". The Minister must spell out to us the total amount of money that is to be spent, because on my reading of the Bill the authorisation sought is only £11,900,000.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister has not been out of order in anything he has said.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I do not consider myself under an obligation to answer that point. What is spent is a matter for the promoters. I was giving only a rough estimate and quoting a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West.
I was dealing with the question of uneconomic price cutting and the fears that have been expressed, and I am at least giving the hon. Member for Newport credit for sincerity in what he has said. Having heard these anxieties expressed from various quarters, I invited representatives of the British Transport Docks Board and of the Bristol Port Authority to meet me in South Wales. We spent a quite profitable and useful afternoon discussing their obvious rivalries. Both were able to agree with at the end of the day that processes of uneconomic price cutting would be useless, unhelpful and dangerous. Both were prepared to agree to meet at regular intervals, quarterly, in order that any instance of such uneconomic cutting could be fully investigated.
The hon. Member for Newport, who has raised a great song and dance about this issue, must have been aware of that meeting. In the course of his speech this evening, which was not quite so nonparty political as he would like to suggest, he never made reference to that. He was not prepared to concede that anybody had made the slightest attempt to meet the anxieties of himself and his hon. Friends, which indeed they have. In that failure to recognise what others have tried to do he undermined a great deal of his case. He spoke tonight in a very much rehearsed and predictable way, and at no stage was he prepared to concede that there was anything in the case presented by those hon. Members on both sides of the House who had spoken for Bristol. He did his own case no good at all in that total disregard which he showed for Bristol.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an important point here. The right hon. Gentleman has just taken my hon. Friend to task for apparently concealing information from the House. When asked on 25th January which Welsh dock interests he had consulted in detail, the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Use cannot be made of points of order to advance arguments. The Minister has said nothing out of order.

Mr. Roy Hughes: First, on the Minister's last point about the conciliatory gesture he made by this meeting in Cardiff, he will be aware that I have


written to him about this matter, pointing out that I felt that this was nothing more than a political gimmick. On the question of the rate of return, as I see it there are three sides to the triangle. We went into it very deeply in 1968. First, there is the estimate of the discounted cash flow from Bristol; secondly, the estimate from the Ports Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—thirdly, we had the estimate from the Ministry. Where is the estimate from the Ministry tonight?

Mr. Peyton: Without being offensive, I think that I can probably say that I share the relief of other hon. Members that the hon. Gentleman did not make his second speech last 35 minutes. There was a moment when I feared that he might be about to do that.
I think that everybody interested on both sides of the Bristol Channel will agree that we have made some genuine attempt to ensure that uneconomic price cutting, which will help nobody, will not occur. Procedures have been adopted to ensure that adequate opportunities are given for the registering of complaints on this score. Yet we are just told, rather ungenerously, that it is a political gimmick. I do not believe that in showing that lack of generosity the hon. Gentleman is showing his true character.
The assumption that Bristol has no rights whatever is not one which I believe strengthens the case of those who oppose the Bill. I believe that it is right that the Bill should have a Second Reading, and I hope that the House will agree to that proposition.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I greatly welcome the tone with which the Minister has addressed the House. I rise to speak as briefly as I can, to support the Bill knowing that there are many other hon. Members with a legitimate interest for and against who wish to make their argument and to allow the House to reach a decision.
The speech I want to make is one that I have long wanted to make in the House, since I was condemned by political advancement to make my support in another place where it was less publicly known but, I hope, was no less effective.
The truth is that this is Bristol's third attempt to get its dock development. Let us be perfectly plain and frank about it: the other two failed because the economic prospects were not thought to be good enough.
I say in all sincerity to the three Welsh Members who have spoken, and to the Scots Welshman who has spoken, too, that not one bit of their arguments carried any weight in this dispute in the considerations of the previous Government, save only that they identified and exploited—I say this without meaning to be offensive—in the defence of what they thought to be their constituents' interests, the economic weakness of the earlier schemes—namely, the Portbury and West Dock I were not thought by the Labour Minister to be economic enough to justify them. There was no other reason whatsoever why the earlier schemes were not authorised.
Though I do not want to introduce a political note into the debate, I must say that I somewhat resented the charges, when I was a member of the Cabinet when my party was in power, that there were other reasons than that. Therefore, I greatly welcomed the Minister's confirmation today that the D.C.F. calculations brought forward under the new scheme, which takes advantage of certain technical developments, are much more favourable than those in the past.
I think I can say without any contradiction from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) or any other former member of the Labour Government that had the D.C.F. calculations now confirmed by this Minister, been available to the last Government, the scheme would have been approved, because all the argument centred round the expectation on the rate of return.
I am assuming that the grant will be forthcoming from the Government. We have not heard tonight whether this will be the case, but, the Government having made their pledges in the last election, in the election before that and on every other occasion when they were able to refer to it, I assume that they will make a grant for the Bristol Dock scheme.
I turn now to my hon. Friends who have spoken at enormous length in defence of what they believe to be their constituents' interests. I very much share


their anxieties about the unacceptably high level of unemployment in Wales and their legitimate fears that anything might be done, however accidentally, that might damage their interests. This is perfectly well understood and perfectly well founded.
However, to go beyond that to a systematic and sustained attack against one of the nation's oldest seaports in wishing to renew its old equipment is to go beyond the bounds of reason. I know that by hon. Friends adopt their attitude in sincerity. When they speak about the advantages that Bristol has by being a municipally-owned port they forget that Bristol is not a development area. The development area advantages, certainly those available to Wales under the previous Government, were considerable in terms of investment grants, in terms of regional employment premium, and in terms of a tight I.D.C. control over any development in Bristol; for Bristol did not qualify for I.D.Cs.
Whatever the House may feel about my activities in another capacity regarding the Clyde, the North-East and elsewhere, I hope that no one will accuse me of not being sensitive to high levels of unemployment, for it was my task as a Minister in the last Government to bring to bear major resources and a great deal of effort to help development in South Wales and elsewhere.
Having said that, however, I beg my hon. Friends not to speak as though this were an issue comparable to wales joining the Common Market. The truth is that we are all part of one economic region. The Severn Bridge and other means of transport bring us so closely together in terms of travelling time, trade and commerce that it is inconceivable that the development and prosperity which might flow from authorisation of the new West Dock scheme could fail to bring prosperity also to our friends and neighbours in South Wales.
I very much hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends, although they may wish to speak and, perhaps, vote against the proposal, will not be determined in their efforts to prevent the House giving its assent to the Bill. Incidentally, in this connection, I am confirmed in my belief that public ownership and some national planning would have been a sensible way of handling dock investment.
Bristol's whole character is built around its port. From the very outset Bristol has derived its thinking, its view of the world and its whole concept of society from seeing the world through the big picture window of its port. Since the Welsh have great poetry in them, I make no apology for saying that the fact that that port and its renewal should be the object of a particular and continuing attack is not understood in Bristol at all.
Bristol people are very determined. They will not give up. They tried the Portbury scheme. It did not come up to the criteria. They tried the first West Dock scheme. It did not come up to the test. Now, they have their second West Dock scheme, and it has come up to the test. They will not be diverted by arguments of the kind that we have had tonight, while they see Rotterdam and other ports developing; because the vision there in Bristol is alive.
I urge the House most sincerely to decide this issue on the merits as put forward, and as upheld by the Minister with all the means of assessment which he has at his disposal. I ask it to give the Port of Bristol the opportunity which it needs, and which it knows better than any, how to develop in the interests of the whole region.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) tempts me greatly, but I shall resist the temptation to take up his comments about unemployment, Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, the RB211 and Beagle aircraft.
What we seek now is natural justice fter six years of being thwarted in our attempts to build our dock. I was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the last Government had no political axes to grind in deciding not to allow Portbury and West Dock No. 1 schemes to proceed. Some of us had suspected that, perhaps, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who, unfortunately, is not wih us tonight, might have had something to do with that decision, in the background, as a member of the Cabinet.
Perhaps I might just quote the words of Will Wilkins, the former Member for


Bristol, South, in the debate on 8th July, 1968. Referring to the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Richard Marsh, he said:
In other words, he is the chap with the ring in his nose, and there is someone at the end of the pole about whom we should like to know."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1968; Vol. 768, c. 136–7.]
I have never quite fathomed who it was at the end of the pole, but I am glad to know that it was not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East.
Times change, and Governments change. The former Minister of Transport had a pretty difficult task in trying to defend the decision not to allow the West Dock Mark 2 to proceed. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has not had to oppose a recommendation of the National Ports Council. It is significant that the Council has in the past thought long and hard before making recommendations of approval for ports to go ahead.
We have listened to the legitimate pleas of South Wales from hon. Members naturally concerned about its interests. We in the West Country also feel that we have legitimate interests. I do not wish to be offensive and try to pretend that Wales as a country is not a region, but we are no less of a region and we have our own regional interests. Because our region is long and thin and not more of a square shape, it does not follow that we are any less interested in development within the region, wherever that development may be.
Our three development points in the West Country are agriculture, tourism and industry, based on Plymouth and Bristol. All three form the whole entity of the West Country. We have our problems. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said, the problems of unemployment are not unknown in the South-West. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) raised the subject of Gunnislake in an Adjournment debate recently, and my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) and I took part in that brief debate. If the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and his hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) were here, I am sure that they would wish to take part in the debate and acknowledge

that unemployment is a factor in our region.
We have a legitimate regional interest in wanting to see the West Dock Mark II go ahead. The M5 has been mentioned, and the A38 spine road extension to Plymouth is coming. These developments in the next few years will make the West Dock in Bristol a vital factor in the economic development of the West Country.
We are not greedy people in Bristol. We have an adventurous history, but I do not think that anyone can say that Bristol's adventures have let the country or the city down. Our demands are basically modest. All we seek is natural justice.
The dock gates of Avonmouth and the West Dock Mark 2 will be a mere 200 or 300 yards from the motorway system. We have had outstandingly good management in the port of Bristol for many years and outstandingly good marketing. The crux of the matter is the difference between a pessimist looking at the Bristol Channel as though it were a glass of water and saying, "I think the glass is half empty" and an optimist saying, "It is half full". On our side of the Channel we are optimists. There is a great deal of potential. That is why we believe that the development of the Bristol West Dock will do nothing other than increase interest and trade in the whole Bristol Channel.
There is another Bill before the House concerning the closure of the City Dock. All that we are trying to do is to replace our worn-out facilities in the City Dock of Bristol with new, modern facilities on the Somerset bank of the River Avon opposite Avonmouth. It is an idea site. It will not cause any loss of amenity. The natural deep water channel is on our side of the Channel. If the English Channel Tunnel is built the new dock and all the ports on the Bristol Channel will find themselves in an enviable position. They will then have direct access to Europe, and they will be the nearest ports for traffic from North America. I will not make any controversial statement about Bristol, Cardiff, Port Talbot, Milford Haven, Watchet or Bridgwater. All the ports on the Bristol Channel will find themselves in an enviable and favoured position—

Mr. Robert Cooke: And Weymouth.

Mr. Adley: —with their access to Europe in relation to traffic from North America. The brief intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) was thoroughly constructive, because it clearly showed that other ports in the Bristol Channel had nothing to fear from the provision in the Channel of modern facilities.
I throw away a large quantity of my notes and say finally that my own business experience and my own eyesight show me that when a shoe shop opens in the High Street, very soon there are other shoe shops, because good shoe shops bring people who want to buy shoes. I believe that it will be exactly the same with the creation of a fine new port in the Bristol Channel and that we can look forward to the West Dock Mark II bringing increased prosperity to all ports on both sides of the Bristol Channel.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), I welcome the statement by the Minister tonight. Perhaps the only thing missing was that this would have been a most appropriate occasion for him to have given us a hint that there would be substantial Government assistance towards this project, but we are grateful for the way in which he put the case for Bristol.
Bristol is a most historic city and this development has been a continuous process. Some 195 years ago, in May, 1776, the Royal Assent was given to a Bill to improve Bristol docks. One of the Bristol Members most assiduous in seeing the Bill through the House was Edmund Burke. We hear a great deal about Edmund Burke these days, but it is a limited facet of his repertoire about which we are told, and I am happy to be able to tell the House that he was most assiduous in his attention to the interests of his constituents and that not only did he pursue the interests of the port development with great zeal, but he did his utmost to ensure that Bristol had its fair share of the slave trade. Even when that port Bill was going through there was serious complaint from both Liverpool and London who felt that this was a threat to them.
Bristol Members will be interested to know that at that time it was a tradition

of Bristol to make newly elected Members freemen of the City. I will say that things are not quite the same now and leave it at that, but Bristol Members will know what I mean.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) was a little too modest in his introductory statement, because the harbour facilities in the Bristol area started at Sea Mills in his constituency where the Romans had a small port. As the port progressed and grew, we had this natural movement outwards to Avon-mouth, the outport. The plain fact of the matter is that in the Bristol Channel there is a substantial tract of deep water which happens to lie on the Bristol side and which is ten feet deeper than that on the opposite side. This is a geographical accident which has nothing to do with the machinations of Bristol, but the fact remains that this deep water channel is there and it gives Bristol a substantial advantage with shipping.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order. I apologise for raising a point of order now, but I suspect that there may not be another opportunity to do so. As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, this debate is of major concern to the people of Wales and you yourself have commented, as have other hon. Members, that we have had two speeches of 35 minutes from the Welsh side of the Channel. However, they were the only two speeches allowed in opposition in an unusual debate. It is of genuine concern to us—and I say this seriously—that on a matter which is regarded as of the greatest importance in Wales we have been partially gagged. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may, because it suits their purpose, wish to treat it with a certain hilarity. But only two speakers have been allowed to put the arguments against this proposal. Hon. Members on this side representing South Wales constituencies and I have spent a lot of time going through what happened in the Select Committee in order to answer the economic arguments, and we have been denied the chance to do so. This will be regarded very badly in Wales.

Mr. Speaker: I do not detect the point of order. The hon. Members for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) and Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) each spoke for 35 minutes. I should have much preferred to have called seven Members from South Wales


each of whom would have spoken for 10 minutes.

Mr. Tom King: Further to that point of order. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that it would not have been possible to call seven Members for South Wales constituencies because they do not seem to be present?

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the point of order. Even if we had—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The lion. Gentleman did not make a proper point of order.

Mr. Cocks: I am grateful for the opportunity to continue my speech.
We appreciate the genuine fears of the Welsh about unemployment. At two elections I contested the constituency of Gloucestershire, South where there is a substantial number of Welsh people, many of whom are good friends of mine, who settled in the area between the wars because things were very bad in South Wales. But I emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol. South-East said, that we have suffered a great deal in Bristol through the development policies. If hon. Members care to look at the I.C.I. site to the north of Bristol they will see that a very small area has been developed because capital expenditure has been much more attractive in the development areas for this great company.

The hinterlands of the Bristol area and South Wales are entirely different. We live in times of economic change. The port of Barry was once a great coal exporting port. Now it is struggling along on very limited trade. Bristol is a feeder for a great agricultural hinterland. It is true that in the past there has been criticism to the effect that there is a lack of export content in the trade of the port. But, with the coming of the motorway, the intersection at Almondsbury will provide a tremendous chance for development of our export trade, and this will correct the imbalance.

Is it not sensible that, at a time when we are always speaking about the need to develop overseas trade, we should concentrate on the facilities for doing the job? I commend the Bill to the House as being a thoroughly desirable and worth-while measure which will bring Bristol a long overdue measure of social justice.

Mr. Alan Williams: Mr. Alan Williams rose—

Mr. Robert Cooke: Mr. Robert Cooke rose—

Mr. Alan Williams: It is not yet 10 o'clock.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Mr. Robert Cooke rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 23.

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Urwin, T. W.


Moate, Roger
Royle, Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Russelt, Sir Ronald
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Monro, Hector
Sandelson, Neville
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


More, Jasper
Scott, Nicholas
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Walters, Dennis


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Ward, Dame Irene


Mudd, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Watkins, David


Neave, Airey
Soref, Harold
Weatherill, Bernard


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Speed, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Normanton, Tom
Spence, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Worsley, Marcus


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Younger, Hn. George


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)



Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Trew, Peter
Mr. Martin McLaren and


Pym, Rt Hn. Francis
Tugendhat, Christopher
Mr. Arthur Palmer.


Redmond, Robert

Division No. 404.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Havers, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hawkins, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hay, John


Atkinson, Norman
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hayhoe, Barney


Awdry, Daniel
Emery, Peter
Hicks, Robert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Eyre, Reginald
Hornby, Richard


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Benyon, W.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hunt, John


Bishop, E. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet
James, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, B. W.)
Fowler, Norman
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Boscawen, Robert
Gardner, Edward
Kershaw, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gibson-Watt, David
Kilfedder, James


Bray, Ronald
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Goodhew, Victor
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bryan, Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Kinsey, J. R.


Channon, Paul
Green, Alan
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Longden, Gilbert


Clegg, Walter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Loveridge, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Gummer, Selwyn
McMaster, Stanley


Cohen, Stanley
Gurden, Harold
Macmillian, Maurice (Farnham)


Cooke, Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Crouch, David
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mather, Carol


d'Avigdor-Goltismid, Maj.-Gcn. Jamcs
Haselhurt, Alan
Mawby, Ray




NOES


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Evans, Fred
Lambie, David



Gower, Raymond
Leadbitter, Ted
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lipton, Marcus
Mr. Roy Hughes and


Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Neil McBride.

Question put accordingl:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 18.

Division No. 405.]
AYES
[10.8 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Awdry, Daniel
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Haselhurst, Alan
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Havers, Michael
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Benyon, W.
Hay, John
Redmond, Robert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bishop, E. S.
Hicks, Robert
Royle, Anthony


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hornby, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boscawen, Robert
Homsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Scott, Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Bray, Ronald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Srocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hunt, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Bryan, Paul
James, David
Soref, Harold


Channon, Paul
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Speed, Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Ruslicliffe)
Kershaw, Anthony
Spence, John


Clegg, Walter
Kilfedder, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Cohen, Stanley
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
Kinsey, J. R.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Crouch, David
Longden, Gilbert
Tinn, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Loveridge, John
Trew, Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Tugendhat, Christopher


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Emery, Peter
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Eyre, Reginald
Mather, Carol
Walters, Dennis


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Watkins, David


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fowler, Norman
More, Jasper
Wiggin, Jerry


Gardner, Edward
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Woodnutt, Mark


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Marcus


Godber, fit. Hn. J. B.
Mudd, David
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey



Green, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Martin McLaren and


Gummer, Selwyn
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Arthur Palmer.




NOES


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
John, Brynmor
O'Halloran, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Evans, Fred
Lambie, David



Gower, Raymond
Lipton, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Roy Hughes and


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aueravon)
Mr. Neil McBride


Hooson, Emlyn

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, the Third Reading of the Greater London Council (Money) Bill and of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wealherill.]

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker (St. Marylebone): I commend the Third Reading of this Bill to the House. As hon. Members know, this is an annual Bill which allows the G.L.C. to indulge in capital expenditure and to lend money. The amount involved this year in its current expenditure is some £217 million.
I shall be very brief in my remarks. I only hope that my brevity is shared by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I want first to make one or two observations upon the procedure for Private Bills as regards the two London Bills. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has intimated that the Select Committee on Procedure ought to look into the conduct of Private Bills in this House. I personally welcome this and hope that the Select Committee on Procedure will look into what has happened to the London Bills over the last two or three years.
I have no criticism of hon. Members opposite who have opposed them. They have acted within their constitutional prerogative and powers. However, I cannot help thinking that those who devised the procedure for Private Bills in the past could not have thought that it would be used in this way. The debates on Private Bills sponsored by the G.L.C. in the last two years have varied from a straight political ding-dong, if an election has been pending, to prolonged adjournment debates on constituency matters. I hope that the Select Committee

on Procedure will look into this, because I cannot believe that it is a satisfactory way of using the time of this House.
As I have said, the Bill before us concerns the current expenditure of the G.L.C. The sum involved is £217 million, most of which is direct capital expenditure. The G.L.C. will lend some of this £217 million to mortgagees or housing associations. During the passage of the Bill through this House, the G.L.C. announced that it intended to lend a further £50 million to housing associations in the next four years. This means that housing associations under a Tory controlled G.L.C. will be able to borrow £125 million over the next four years. The G.L.C. hopes that this money will be taken up. If it is fully taken it will provide 25,000 extra houses for London over and above the programme of the G.L.C. and the London boroughs. The G.L.C. has nomination rights over 50 per cent. of those 25,000 houses. I express the hope that those London boroughs which have recently become Socialist controlled will be more sympathetic towards housing associations than they have been in the first few days of their power.
I am the chairman of a housing association in Acton, which is beginning to build some of the best flats in the London Borough of Ealing. Each flat has a patio garden. We were destined to receive one and a half acres of land from the London borough of Ealing, but now that it is Labour controlled we are not to receive it. This is a pure surrender of the housing interests of West London to dogma.
The Bill also allows the G.L.C. to lend money to those who want to buy their own houses. The G.L.C. has engaged upon a programme of selling council houses, and it has extended that programme in the last fortnight. It has already sold 5,650 houses and receives applications to buy houses at the rate of 130 a week. I find it intriguing that certain Labour councillors throughout the land, who have suddenly become councillors, have, in the last three or four years, bought their own houses. They are now committed to not selling houses. They fought a tremendous battle with their consciences, and won.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: I will in a moment.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: This is not a ding-dong.

Mr. Baker: This is not a ding-dong. This is an exposition of the excellent government of London under Tory G.L.C. domination. I hope that the excellent example of the G.L.C. in selling council houses—by selling council houses the housing stock is not reduced by one house; it is merely a transfer of ownership—will be extended throughout the country.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Gentleman at the outset said that he was not anxious that this matter should become a political ding-dong. He made a great point about it.

Captain Walter Elliot: Take your hand out of your pocket.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has a great knowledge of being slovenly from the position in which he now sits. How does the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) reconcile what he said at the beginning of his speech with the utter hypocrisy which he is now mouthing?

Mr. Baker: I can understand that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) is concerned about a political ding-dong. I believe that he will not have a seat to fight at the next election. The electors of Hackney are so satisfied with the hon. Gentleman that they may decide not to readopt him at the next election. I will resist the temptation to indulge in these political fireworks and concentrate on the Bill.
The Bill also allows for a continual capital expenditure for Thamesmead. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has informed me that he intends to speak on the matter. The G.L.C. has decided to go ahead with the third stage of Thamesmead. I hope very much that it will receive the approval of the House. It is an adventurous and exciting development. Already about 3,500 people live in Thamesmead, and by going ahead with stage 3 the G.L.C. and the Government together will provide homes for a further 5,000 people.
Any hon. Members who oppose the progress of Thamesmead will be opposing progress in the building of homes for

5,000 people. This Measure has been supported by the previous Government, by our own Government, by the previous G.L.C., when it was Labour-controlled, and now by the Conservative-controlled G.L.C. I thank the Government for extending the cost yardstick to allow stage 3 to develop, because without that it could not have been started.
About 1,400 homes will be built in Thamesmead. Also, there will be a children's play centre, 24 toddlers' play centres, and three old people's rest rooms. I hope that this will be a vital and important centre of life in London in the years to come. The project will cost nearly £15 million, and it is to the credit of the G.L.C. that with the support that it has received from the Government, it can go ahead.
I now propose to touch briefly on the Thames barrier and flood protection in London, as this was raised at length on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing). Since then the hon. Gentleman has had meetings with the chairman of the committee, Mr. Black of the G.L.C., who deals with the barrier, and the hon. Gentleman was accompanied by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford.
There are two sources of criticism of the London Thames barrier. One is that it is not in the right place. I think that that is the view of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, who would like to see a Thames flood barrier somewhere on the line of Southend to Margate. The second criticism is that the barrier is not of the right sort, that it should be drop gate rather than rising sector.
The first criticism that it is not in the right place at Silvertown is, I think, a political one. This site has been examined by every expert authority on the positioning of dams and waterways, by the Government, by the G.L.C, by independent consultants, and by riparian authorities in London, and their collective decision is that it should be at Silvertown.
As to the type of barrier, which was the point raised by the hon. Member for Acton, there are basically two types. There is the conventional barrier, which is the lock, which most of us know, with gates coming down. There is then the


type which has been selected by consultants, by the Government, and by the G.L.C., the rising sector type, which is like a saucer on the bed of the river. It is raised when there is a danger of a flood.
The G.L.C. has opted for the latter, and it has done so for a variety of reasons, one of which is cost. The cost of a drop gate barrier would have been about £48 million without a lock. The cost of a rising sector barrier would have been about £36 million without a lock. The question whether there should be a lock combined with a barrier is a rather technical matter, but the G.L.C. tells me that it is prepared to consider including a lock. The consideration is that if the barrier has to be raised when there is a danger of flooding from water coming in from the North Sea, it is unlikely that the lock will be used or needed, but nonetheless the G.L.C. is prepared to consider that.
The G.L.C. and the Government have selected a rising sector barrier at Silver-town because it allows 200 ft. openings. The depth of the water at Silvertown allows piers to be built so that the mechanism of the gate can be examined by bringing it up, without using divers. It seems that technical opinion generally is in favour of the rising sector barrier, but those who still have doubts will be able to express them on the Bill to be introduced next Session by the G.L.C. The barrier will be the subject of a separate Bill in the next Session.
The financing of London, of which this Bill is an essential part, is a growing and continuing problem. The rateable value in London is growing at the rate of only about 1½ per cent. per year. This is not an adequate tax base for the capital and current expenditure of London. The costs of running Greater London rise at about 8 or 9 per cent. a year, including inflation. If the tax base, or the rateable value, increases by only 1½ per cent., the dilemma is obvious. It means that unless an alternative source of revenue is found the rates will have to rise. This is the dilemma of London. It is also the dilemma of New York, Washington and of any capital or major city in the world.
I look forward to the Government's Green Paper on local government financing. I hope the Minister will be able to

say that this Green Paper will be produced very soon. If the level of capital expenditure that is needed in London is to be sustained, alternative sources of revenue will have to be found to supplement rates. I do not believe it is possible to substitute any alternative source of revenue for the rates, but we should seek to find methods of supplementing it.
The Greater London Council has put forward various ideas, such as a tourist tax, a hotel tax, a local sales tax and so on. If we are to depend entirely on rateable value and on ratepayers, we must face the fact that in 1968 there were about 2,403,000 domestic ratepayers in London and in 1971 there were only 2,430,000. This means that the residents of London, the ratepayers, and particularly the domestic ratepayers, will have to face an ever-increasing rate burden unless some alternative is found to finance the capital requirements of London.
I welcome the fact that the G.L.C. under Tory control has not cut the capital programme of London; it has not cut the revenue programme. It has decided to go ahead and try to make London a proper place to live in. But the cost is very great and we in this House and the G.L.C. will have to give considerable thought in the years to come as to how this expenditure can be financed. I commend the Bill to the House.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am glad to be called after the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker), who, as some hon. Members will know, was previously the Member for Acton, the constituency I now represent.
I have two major issues to raise, but before doing so I would take up two of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He mentioned Third Reading debates on Private Business, and it may well be that the Committee on Procedure will look at this matter. I wish to raise two major issues, one the Fleet line and the other the barrier, which has been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and which is a matter for the Government as much as for London. I am using this debate in the time-honoured way in this House as a means of criticising, or commenting, or asking questions of the Executive—in other words, of the Government of the day, whoever they may be. When the Committee on Procedure looks at this matter,


I hope it will see that there is a place for such an opportunity in respect of Private Bills, particularly those introduced by the Greater London Council.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned housing associations and referred to the London Borough of Ealing and to happenings there recently. Perhaps he is aware that under a former administration in the borough some 30 acres of land which had been acquired by a previous administration for council housing was allocated to housing associations. Some of those associations had had no previous experience in building or managing houses. Furthermore, they were going to use land that was already allocated to public purposes. That was an element in the consideration he mentioned. The former Conservative administration managed to start a total of 22 houses for public ownership last year in the whole of the Borough of Ealing. When he says that the present administration has withdrawn the offer of 1½ acres—I cannot identify those 1½ acres as I did not know that he would raise this matter—he ought to bear in mind the total context of the situation in the past few years, of which he is well aware.
On the matter of the Fleet line, which is very important to London, I have been asking Questions of Ministers on this subject. On 16th June a Written Answer from the Minister for Housing and Construction told me that this request for infrastructure grant to the G.L.C. was made on 18th July, 1970. So we have waited nearly a year. In his Answer then he gave no indication that the criteria which the Government were applying to this particular investment was any different from that which the G.L.C. gave, except implications for the South-East generally. Further, his right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, in a letter to me on 30th June, a couple of days ago, admitted that the Government had given a 75 per cent. grant to Liverpool—good luck to Liverpool. But he said
…I did make it clear that our continuing policy is to pay capital grants on worthwhile public transport projects in London or elsewhere. The key word here is 'worthwhile'.
I wholeheartedly join with the hon. Member for St. Marylebone, who on Second Reading called for a statement from the Government on this matter. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he

considers that the Fleet line is not worthwhile for London. That is the implication of the study being undertaken by the Department of the Environment.
I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) in the Chamber, because it was under his administration that the go-ahead was given to the Victoria line, although we knew then that it would not stand on its own feet financially. I hope that the Government will continue the precedent set by the right hon. Member for Wallasey.
I feel a little hesitant about raising the subject of the Thames barrier because it is a complex matter and hon. Members may ask why I am bringing technical matters to them tonight when they could be sorted out in County Hall or elsewhere. There is another debate to come, of which I am well aware. I took the opportunity of meeting officials at County Hall yesterday, and I received a certain amount of information from them. I reiterate that my concern is not for one type of barrier. I have no vested interest in any particular type. The debate on what is the right type of barrier to build which should have taken place has not. There should have been a free and open debate in which information was freely available. When a solution is reached it should be seen to be the right one. We cannot take lightly the risk of flooding in London.
Hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friends often debate semantics and abstract issues, but this is a fundamental and tangible issue. I am concerned that not only the right decision is taken but that it is seen to be rightly taken. Unfortunately, we have not had all the facts, even though the decision was taken last December.
Very often in planning inquiries people are told, "Wait a while; this will be taken later". Tonight the hon. Gentleman has said, "Wait for the Bill". Often when people raise queries at that later time, they are told that they should have raised them before. That is why I have taken every opportunity in the past few weeks to raise this matter in every possible way—so that at a later stage nobobdy could say, "You should have raised this before." I have raised it.
On the background of this matter, I have no complaint on the work of the Government or the G.L.C. from 1968


to January, 1970. There was a very thorough report then, and a joint Report meeting at County Hall between the Government and the G.L.C. despite the two political interests things were going well. At that time the situation seemed fairly clear. In September, 1969, the joint consultants came to this conclusion.
Having considered many different types of rising gate, the Joint Consulting Engineers are unable to put forward any proposal for such a barrier which entirely eliminates all disadvantages and offers a reliability of the same order as barriers of some other types.
In other words, they were referring to the drop gate barrier, which is the alternative. That was taken up in the official G.L.C. report published in October, 1969, the First Report of Studies, on page 40. The G.L.C. said:
However, the search for reliability has confirmed that where a span of 500 ft. or less is envisaged a drop gate provides the most satisfactory solution.
In May, 1970, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, we are told in a report of the G.L.C. dated 15th December last,
concluded that on the evidence before him it appeared that the best solution might be a drop-gate barrier in part of the River Thames from Woolwich Reach to Blackwall Reach. The Council was asked to continue its studies and to make firm proposals.
Up to that point everything is clear. It is from then, and indeed from July, 1970, according to the G.L.C., that we get a strange change. It is the way in which the change has come about that I am by no means satisfied, even with the explanation which was courteously given by Mr. Peter Black and his officers at County Hall.
In that same Report the G.L.C. said that
the most suitable location for a movable barrier was the western part of Woolwich Reach.
I agree that that is a very reasonable solution. The report then says that
if 200-ft. openings were accepted for navigational purposes it might be practicable to consider a structure with rising sector gates.
That is the second time it comes back. The first time it is discarded because it is less reliable. Here it comes back again. I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination that phrase could be interpreted as a recommendation. It is certainly nothing like it.
We heard nothing afterwards until 22nd December when the Secretary of State for the Environment brings out a Press release—not even a Written Answer, but a Press release, of which the right hon. Gentleman is rather fond. It concludes that a rising sector gate will be the best solution. It says this:
From the point of view of cost and speed, the rising sector is clearly the more attractive proposition, but the question we had to consider was whether the openings would be wide enough to be safe for shipping. The organisations responsible for shipping in the Thames have now advised that they are prepared to accept openings not less than 200 ft., and accordingly I have adopted the recommendation of the Greater London Council in favour of the rising sector gate.
As we have seen, that was the recommendation that never was. Here we have the Secretary of State for the Environment making the decision. The facts on which he has changed his mind or on which the G.L.C. has changed its mind from one type of structure to another are still not finally made entirely clear.
What about the navigational interests? The Annual Report of the P.L.A. for 1970 says this of the type of barrier which is proposed by the G.L.C.—that is, the rising sector of 4×200 ft. openings—
This type of barrier was not favoured by the Authority on navigational grounds and it was considered that an alternative design with a 450-ft. opening flanked by smaller openings and closed by means of drop gates was more suitable.
So the P.L.A. did not agree with the Minister and the G.L.C.
Trinity House are also concerned with navigation in the Thames. A letter sent to be by the Secretary of Trinity House, dated 10th June, 1971, states:
Trinity House did in fact write to the Minister of the Environment in December last stating that a central drop gate opening, with a minimum width of 350 ft., flanked on either side by a 200 ft. rising sector gate was favoured, and that four 200-ft. rising sector gates were not attractive as they would require elaborate tendering…Mention was also made of the 450-ft. drop gate favoured by shipping interests, but that Trinity House accepted the G.L.C. view that the expenditure and delay involved in providing such a gate were not warranted.
In other words, it is the time-old political move: their arms were being twisted, in that they were being told that if they insisted on a wider opening it would take longer to construct and would be more expensive, and if the flood came, London


would be flooded and they would be responsible; so it was said, "You had better agree with what we say."
The letter gave the view of Trinity House, but they are not the only people concerned. In a letter sent to me on 18th January by the Under-Secretary of State now on the Front Bench, I was told that the navigational experts at the Department of Trade and Industry are satisfied that these openings are big enough.
and the Chamber of Shipping has assured us that the rising sector gate is acceptable to them, provided tugs are available…
But it is not as straightforward as that, for a copy of a letter to the Department of Environment from the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping dated 7th December 1970, states that:
The Chamber of Shipping has consistently preferred the Silvertown site with a drop gate structure giving a minimum opening of 450 ft. in the general interests of the safety of navigation.
In view of the savings in cost and time that a sector gate type of structure would permit, this question has recently been reexamined by the Chamber, and against this background their views are as follows …
Their arms are twisted as well.
The Department of the Environment says that navigational interests have agreed, whereas we see that all the three navigational interests concerned have agreed only because they have been told, and they have accepted, that this design is both cheaper and more quickly erected. So it may be, but I see no conclusive evidence to that effect, and I have no doubt that they took those assurances in good faith.
The only Department concerned with navigation which wholeheartedly accepted this design was the Department of Trade and Industry, which said in a letter to me on 1st July, that there were considerable advantages
over the drop gate design in terms of cost and construction time.
We see, therefore, how people's arms are twisted. Perhaps it is right, if the evidence is there, but let us look at the question of time. In their report some time ago, the joint consultants said that 6½ years would be the time for construction of a drop gate barrier, and less for a narrower opening. The G.L.C.
says that the rising sector gates at Silver-town, without tide control,
would provide protection soonest (possibly six years)".
So the time element does not seem to be there at all. I cannot see why the arms of the navigational authorities were twisted on the basis of time, because, on the evidence before us, the time was approximately similar.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone has made some reference to cost. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that this is the first time that proper comparative costs have been given publicly, for the costs previously given have been on a different basis.
The question of time and cost is not the only consideration. We are concerned with reliability. Reliability is of paramount importance when we are dealing with the possibility of flooding in London. The design which was considered not so reliable is now adopted. What has caused the change?
In 1969, the consultants stated that a rising type of barrier was not as reliable as other types. In 1969, the then Minister asked the G.L.C. to go ahead with a drop gate design. What happened to change this view? I received a copy of a report on this matter yesterday. I did not have it until yesterday because, for some reason or other, the G.L.C. did not see fit to let me have it. I asked what was the actual technical report on which it based its recommendation—which was not a recommendation—to the Minister. I have it here. It more or less starts from scratch.
The terms of reference given to the G.L.C. engineers are referred to—undated, incidentally. No letter is dated here, as they were in the previous reports. The G.L.C. has proposed that the barrier should incorporate four navigation openings, each 200 ft. wide, and it asks the engineers to say what sort of barrier would be best.
It is curious that the figure given is 200 ft. It did not say, "a minimum of 200 ft.". Now, it so happens that 200 ft. is the maximum width to which this particular type of rising gate will be mechanically effective. So here we have the Greater London Council in a request to its consulting engineers asking for a width of barrier which happens to have the same maximum as the chosen design.
What is more, this report is different from the kind of report we have had previously. Not only are there no terms of reference properly written up but the date of the request from the G.L.C. is not given, and neither is there any covering letter or date showing when the same consulting engineers gave their answer. Instead of being very full, this report is five pages of foolscap. It is rather thin. It does not refer to their previous report two years before when they came to different conclusions. It does not give any reason why they have changed their mind. Some of the technical reasons they gave to the disadvantage of the rising sector are not even mentioned in the report. So the reason for the about-turn is shrouded in mystery.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: If the objections are being mooted, why has no Socialist member of the G.L.C. mooted them in the respective Committee? Why did no Socialist member of the Environmental Planning Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, moot them when they were specifically put to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of that Committee? Why do we have to have all this detail in the House? The G.L.C. Environmental Planning Committee deals with it. Why were the Socialist members of the G.L.C. so sleepy that they did not twig it? Why must it be brought up at this stage?

Mr. Spearing: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has asked that. It is the second time he has asked. His hon. Friends with him were not here then. I apologised then in a way for having to raise these new matters here. The first reason is that I did not initially regard it as a party political matter, though I am beginning to have doubts. Second, I am on the Environmental Planning Committee, which has no powers in the matter. I wrote to the clerk—

Hon. Members: Answer the question.

Mr. Spearing: I am answering it.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Is my hon. Friend aware that had it not been for the intervention of hon. Members on the issue the whole question of whether there should or should not be interim flood protection before the barrier was built would never have been raised?

Mr. Baker: It is in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has not read it.

Mr. Spearing: I was about to say that the fact that I am a co-opted member of one committee of the G.L.C. does not make me responsible for what my colleagues do or do not do on the Council.
This is a technical matter on which I happen to have some knowledge, and as a London Member I am not prepared to let any Government get away with this doubtful management of our affairs. I am very sorry that Conservative hon. Members seem to resent these matters being brought here. I put down an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to look into them, because I do not regard the Floor of the House as the right place to do it. It should have been done before, but when I asked for details from the G.L.C. they were not prepared to give them to me. This is the only way in which I can raise the matters. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would think it right that Parliament should consider them. When I put down an instruction to the Committee to look at these matters, some friends of hon. Gentleman opposite objected. I am sorry that they did so.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is for the House to consider these matters on Third Reading? It is scandalous that it should be said that it is wrong for Members of Parliament to examine in some detail a Bill which is alleged to have been properly examined in a Committee in another place.

Mr. Spearing: I will conclude by putting six points to the hon. Gentleman who is to reply. I hope that he can answer them tonight. Does not he agree that the decision on the barrier design was made on a questionable basis? He may not be responsible for that. The person at the apex of an organisation is in a difficult position in many ways.
First, did not he make the decision on a recommendation that did not exist?
Second, is it not in the face of previously published evidence?
Third, is it not true that the statements and assurances from the navigation authorities were made under some duress, and that the evidence given to them is


shown this evening to have little basis in fact?
Fourthly, does he accept an undated small report which upturns the previous report by the same consultants as a satisfactory basis for flood protection for the whole of London? Fifthly, is he accepting the design on a basis of speed and cost, as he said in his previous statement, can he now give the evidence and confirm that the cost is different, but the time is the same? Finally, as the reliability of the design which has been preferred has not yet been shown to be superior to any other sort, and I have no preference either way, will he now ensure a proper comparative design statement is made so that everybody concerned with this vital problem may be sure that the right decision has been taken and has been seen to be taken?

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I regret that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) did not go into slightly more detail to explain an item in the Bill of particular interest to me. Item 2 in Part I of the Schedule sets out the expenditure on capital account and says that the estimated requirement for the year ending March, 1972, will be £830,000 and for the six months ending 30th September, 1972, £375,000. In Part II of the Schedule it is said that £10 million is to be lent to the London Boroughs for purposes which are not specified and, during the six months ending 30th September, 1972, £5 million may be lent to the London boroughs.
By a smart operation on the part of the G.L.C., the House was persuaded to accept Statutory Instruments in the earlier part of the year, No. 228, which gave effect to a scheme by the G.L.C. for redistribution between the local authorities in and near Greater London of the ownership and management of certain parks and open spaces vested in the council, and No. 229, which redistributed the ownership and management—

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are on the Third Reading of the Bill. Is it in order for the hon. Member to inaugurate on argument about Statutory Instruments which

are not made under the Bill but which are quite separate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Provided the hon. Member keeps to points which are contained in the Bill, he will be in order; if he goes outside that he will be out of order. I am paying close attention to the hon. Member.

Mr. Lipton: The item in the Bill arises from the fact that Statutory Instruments were approved by the House in the earlier part of the year.

Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend is not quite right in that, because there were many hon. Members who prayed against those Statutory Instruments, but the Government never had the guts to have them debated in the House. That is the most serious part of the matter and my hon. Friend is right to challenge it.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Further to the point of order. It may assist the House if I explain that Item 2 does not concern the Statutory Instruments but the provision of parks and open spaces, which is entirely different. The items it covers are those parks left exclusively under the control of the G.L.C., and they are very limited.

Mr. Lipton: That is one of the things I am complaining about. The Greater London Council has passed the buck to the London boroughs—

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to refer to things that he thinks ought to be in the Bill but are not?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, it is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to do that.

Mr. Lipton: And I am not doing that, either. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone praised the Greater London Council, because it had cut its capital expenditure. He paid some vague tribute to the Council for having done some noble work in that respect. The Bill says quite clearly that the Greater London Council has transferred a very heavy liability from its own shoulders to those of the London boroughs. I will quote just one example of this. The Greater London Council transferred to the Lambeth Borough Council the whole


of Clapham Common, and that will entail—

Mr. Baker: It is not in the Bill.

Mr. Lipton: —and as a result of this manoeuvre—

Mr. Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, the transfer of parks is not covered by the Bill. The expenditure referred to under Item 2 of Part I of the Schedule refers to certain specific parks and open spaces in the East End of London of a very restricted nature. The transfer of parks such as Clapham Common is not in the Bill.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt you are in the same difficulty as we are. When the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) moved the Third Reading he did not go into detail, and neither you nor I, nor any hon. Member other than, apparently, the hon. Member for St. Marylebone, has any idea what is covered by the Bill, because of the inadequate way in which both the hon. Member and the Greater London Council have presented the matter in the memorandum circulated to hon. Members. I submit that it may or not be as the hon. Member for St. Marylebone has stated, but you and I do not know, because the facts have not been placed before the House this evening upon which a judgment or a ruling can properly be made.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Further to that point of order. The promoter of the Bill in this House is now telling us that the amount of money shown in the second item in Part I is for the East End of London. I do not know where that information has come from, but I hope to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in order to make the point that it is not in my part of the East End of London—which is my major criticism. So how do we find out whether what the hon. Member tells us that this amount of money is for the East End—is indeed the fact?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can get into great difficulties here if we are not careful. The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) should be very careful not to go outside the terms of the Bill. I do not

think that the House wants an indefinitely long debate—we have important business to follow. I think that expedition and keeping strictly to the terms of the Bill will be greatly to the advantage of the House.

Mr. Brown: Further to that point of order. The House is not responsible but the Government for putting on three major Measures at a very late hour in the evening. I think that it is disgraceful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not quite correct. I am responsible for that being done, not the Government.

Mr. Lipton: In those circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have to carry an additional burden of responsibility in regard to our discussion this evening.
What I am trying to draw attention to is the item in page 4 which says that a sum of £830,000 will be required for the year ending 31st March, 1972, for
Provision and lay-out of additional open spaces, contributions towards green belt schemes and other purposes.
I am trying to find out in which direction this increased provision and lay-out of additional open spaces is to be made—

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. He points out that the Bill speaks of a contribution to green belt schemes. Can he, or can the hon. Member for St. Marylebone, tell us where in East London these green belt schemes are for which, according to the hon. Member for St. Marylebone, provision is made?

Mr. Lipton: I am obliged. I am also trying to find out what is going on. It is not proving easy. But one must persevere, and, with your concurrence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that we shall elicit some hard facts from any hon. Member opposite who is in the confidence of the Greater London Council to a much greater extent than are London Members on this side of the House.
It is proposed to provide £830,000 for additional open spaces, green belt schemes and other purposes. I want to know what those schemes involve. All I know is that up to now the Lambeth Borough Council has been saddled with additional expenditure of £159,000 in the current year for taking


over Clapham Common from the G.L.C. There is another site in Lambeth which is in very great need of development—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is just the sort of thing which the hon. Gentleman must try to avoid discussing, or he will be out of order.

Mr. Lipton: I shall conclude. Having been denied the opportunity of putting what I consider to be some very relevant questions, we shall still be in the dark by the time this debate has ended, although it may be dawn by that time.
The situation is most unsatisfactory. We must take advantage of every opportunity of exposing the inadequacies and lumbering bureaucratic methods employed by the G.L.C. This is our only chance of bringing the G.L.C. to book, and, whether we are successful or not, we owe it to the citizens of London to take advantage of every possible opportunity to show to what extent London is being badly governed. We are not getting value for the money which this House is being asked to approve.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: The Bill contains provisions which affect my constituency both in respect of the Greater London Council's development at Thamesmead and in the provision of finance for the building of the Thames flood barrier. It is my pleasure to speak in support of the money Bill, and I hope therefore, because the Bill covers my area and because I support it, I will manage to keep in order.
I should like to deal with one or two points raised by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker). He referred to the comments made during business questions last week in respect of the procedure on Private Bills and the fact that the Leader of the House indicated that the consideration of Private Bills might well be a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure.
We often have these Measures presented by the G.L.C. in a vacuum, as has happened tonight, due to the inadequate information made available to hon. Members by the promoting authority. I say to the hon. Member for St. Marylebone—and I hope that as well as taking instructions from the Parliamentary Secretary he will be able to listen

to the debate—that it might be for the use of the House and of the authority on whose behalf he purports to speak if consideration was given by the G.L.C. to stopping this praotice of presenting an annual general purposes Bill. I shall not go into that because, rightly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would call me to order as that is not the Bill before us. The Bill before us is a Money Bill, and is required by law to be presented to Parliament. When the Money Bill comes to us we receive a letter from a gentleman called Mr. H. Wilson—not, I hasten to add, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but Mr. H. Wilson, the Solicitor and Parliamentary Officer of the Greater London County Council—[Interruption.]—if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris): I would not if I were the hon. Gentleman. Let us listen to the hon. Member's speech.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am always prepared to assist in maintaining the good order of the House by giving way when an hon. Gentleman shouts at me from a sedentary position, but, as usual, the hon. Gentleman has nothing sensible to contribute to the debate—

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman was not here during the long debate on Second Reading, but he will doubtless join me in the plea I then made that Parliament should change the law so that the Money Bill does not have to come before us.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I would not go all the way with changing the law so that the Money Bill does not come here, but I certainly think that the General Purposes Bill should come before us only every two years.
The letter we receive from Mr. H. Wilson does not set out sensibly and understandably the provisions contained in the money Bill. The hon. Member for Marylebone also has failed to deal with the matters contained in the Bill. This is most unsatisfactory.
The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) referred to the Second Reading debate, and I make no apologies to him for not being here on that occasion. When I tell him that I was in Southampton assisting my hon. Friend


the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) to return to the House, he will appreciate my sense of priorities.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone said that it was regrettable that debates on G.L.C. Bills should develop into a political ding-dong, but his contribution this evening was no example of the way in which he would like the debate to be conducted.
In the debate on the earlier Bill, the hon. Member for St. Marylebone said that he was prepared to ensure that Councillor Sir Desmond Plummer would be trotting along with his cheque book to the London boroughs to buy up "at a stroke" any available land for building. I was disgusted that the hon. Gentleman presenting the Bill, which contains all the financial provisions which the G.L.C. considers to be necessary, did not draw our attention to the specific item in the Bill which provides the finance for that famous cheque book which he promised would be available to assist in the eradication of London's housing problem.
I am often told that if we argue that the Thames barrier should be on the best possible site, and that the areas we represent should be included in the flood protection provisions, this will delay the provision of finance and disaster will fall upon Inner London. If I represented an Inner London constituency I should be concerned about the safety of my constituents, but I represent an Outer London constituency and therefore make no apology for any activity I engage in in respect of this or any other Bill to ensure that my constituency is protected from the risk of flooding.
The hon. Gentleman said that I considered the siting of the barrier at Silver-town to be wrong. He is quite right. I did hold that view, and still do. But I am prepared to accept that a decision has now been taken and that it will not be overthrown, unfortunately, by any activities in which I might engage. I therefore must come on to the next leg of the argument to protect the citizens of Erith and Crayford who live on the flood plain—and that is to ensure that the money in this Bill is used properly in providing adequate bank protection from floods from the Thames.
Not all the evidence which the hon. Gentleman claims was available to the G.L.C. and the Minister and published was in favour of Silvertown. I do not want to go back over the old arguments, but I will refresh his memory on some of the facts about the case for siting the barrier at a more suitable place, at Crayfordness. The G.L.C. at the public inquiry into Thamesmead gave solemn evidence that it considered that the best site was not at Silvertown but at Crayfordness in order that adequate protection could be given to the citizens of the new town of Thamesmead. The hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State will recall that the Department's own inspector concurred with these sentiments in his report and said that the protection to Thamesmead should be provided by a barrier downstream.
My own local authority, the London borough of Bexley, maintained that the barrier should be downstream. The London borough of Greenwich was also of that view. Above all, if we are considering the technical reports, the weight of the technical evidence was not against Crayfordness, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I remind him of the letter from two eminent firms of consultants contained in the first report of the studies on the flood barrier. They did not say that Silvertown was the right site. They said that Crayfordness was best and the preferred site and that it was engineeringly feasible for the barrier to be built there. So when I say that the people of my area, and Thamesmead in particular, have been misled and betrayed on the question of the flood barrier. I speak upon the weight of evidence and upon the word of the G.L.C. itself, given at that public inquiry.
We want to ensure that the money in this Bill for flood protection is spent wisely by ensuring adequate protection in my area and in the area of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew). We want to ensure that the flood walls in the downstream parts of London are raised to an adequate height. The right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) and I had a meeting, with the London Borough of Bexley Council and other London councils, with the G.L.C. a few days ago. We made and listened to the representations of Bexley about the complete lack of


consultation which has taken place between Bexley Council and the G.L.C.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) is right. On the question of the flood barrier it is virtually impossible (to prise out of County Hall the facts of the situation. My own local authority is on record repeatedly as pointing out that there has been very little meaningful consultation between the G.L.C. and the local authorities involved in flood protection. This is not a party political issue because, when the Conservatives were in control of Bexley before last May, they took exactly the same view as the present Labour Council does—that the G.L.C. has failed time and again to give to the authorities primarily responsible for protecting their citizens' lives and property the full facts upon which those authorities could base a proper judgment.
I hope that, before the money in the Bill for flood protection in London, especially in Erith and Crayford, is spent, the hon. Member for St. Marylebone will ensure that his council has the courtesy and courage to go to Bexley and to explain the facts to that local authority.
I turn, then, to Thamesmead, where an equally serious situation has arisen. At Thamesmead, there is a runaway financial situation. It is building up not only to a financial disaster but a social one.
The scheme at Thamesmead for the housing of 60,000 people began with an estimated total cost of £30 million. That figure has now soared to about £43 million or £44 million. There has been a tremendous escalation in costs, with the result that a tremendous burden will be placed on tenants in respect of rents, as well as on rate payers and tax payers.
There has been difficulty in respect of the Government grant for the building there. The whole issue of the housing yardstick again has been shrouded in secrecy. Even in this House, we have found it virtually impossible to prise the information out of the Government, let alone out of the G.L.C.
The clash between the costs of stages one and two at Thamesmead and the Minister's yardstick was averted only by a meeting between the Minister and Councillor Sir Desmond Plummer. But no statement about it has been made. It was a secret meeting between the Minister and the G.L.C. No information has been

made available to this House. We are still in the dark about the true financial situation at Thamesmead. I hope that the Under-Secretary can tell Parliament, the taxpayers and ratepayers the true financial position and what has been the average cost per unit of accommodation in stages one and two. Many people believe it to have been in excess of £12,000. That may be incorrect. If it is wrong, the hon. Gentleman should give us the detailed make-up of these financial facts.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I wonder if my hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to an advertisement in the Daily Telegrap last Tuesday, comprising 14 lines at £1 a line and offering unfurnished properties at Thamesmead. In that advertisement, one-bedroom flats are offered to anyone for £440 a year, and four-bedroom houses for £780 a year.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I have not see that specific report, but I am aware that rent levels at Thamesmead are scandalously high. No doubt the properties to which my hon. Friend refers are in the four blocks being built alongside South Mere, one of the lakes at Thamesmead, which will be let to people who are not on the housing list but who have the ability to pay the rents demanded. This is quite scandalous.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I understand that the properties being advertised have been built next to a charming lake, whereas council tenants are forced to pay high rents for accommodation by the sewage works.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I cannot assure my hon. Friend that that is a fact, because I have not seen the report to which he has referred. But it appears to refer to the four blocks of flats being built at South Mere.

Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend must get it right. This is not a report; it is an advertisement in the "Unfurnished houses to let" column of the Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Nothing surprises me about the Greater London Council faced with a desperate housing situation in London. I am not surprised that this miserable council, backed by this miserable Government, should be making homes available for those who can afford


them rather than for those who need them.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: In fairness, will the hon. Gentleman accept that hundreds of tenants at Thamesmead are paying rents which, because of the rent rebate scheme, are well below half the economic rent?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not doubt that. If the right hon. Lady would like me to give detailed illustrations of rent levels I shall be happy to do so. Even those who have substantial means-tested rent rebates are still paying rents above the average level for the area as a whole, which is going outside Thamesmead. The rents are scandalously high. I know from personal contact that many tenants are paying £10 or £11 per week for accommodation at Thamesmead. It is a high rent area.
The Under-Secretary should give the House the full facts about the financial situation. I believe that it has been a runaway situation. Incompetence and mismanagement—perhaps even worse—at Thamesmead has brought about this soaring upsurge in building costs. I am sure that no one in this House would want to defend a cost of probably over £12,000 per unit for accommodation if that cost was not creating homes which were fit for people to live in at a reasonable rent. This is happening, and I shall explain to the House the conditions in which some of these tenants are living despite the extortionate rents which they are paying.
The Thamesmead scheme, provided partly by finance under this Bill, has won an international award because of its great design. I have no doubt that in all the planning centres of the world Thamesmead is referred to almost with bated breath as the great example of modern planning. Indeed, it may eventually so turn out, but at the moment that is not how the tenants see it.
If any hon. Member were to visit Thamesmead tomorrow he would see not just in one or two windows, but in virtually every window on the estate, a little poster saying, "I've got damp", because these houses and flats which have been built by the council and let at such high rents have water penetrating

to an outrageous extent. It comes in through the windows and, I am told, through the concrete slabs used in the industrialised building of these multistorey blocks. I should be delighted to show the Under-Secretary round Thamesmead. He would see literally hundreds of these posters in the windows of houses and flats, some two years old and others which have been let for only a few days, complaining of water penetration.
The problem is that in the Bill there is provision for a further stage of the Thamesmead development which will be built on the same design work. There are to be 794 further units built on the same system, and no doubt subject to the same design faults and the same degree of water penetration.
A survey was carried out among the tenants to ascertain the extent of the water penetration. It was initiated by a Mr. Kelly, but it has now been taken over by the Thamesmead Community Association. A large number of forms was put out. I have not brought them all. I have brought only a few to illustrate what has been achieved by the expenditure of money authorised by Parliament.
One man, who pays quite a substantial rent, said:
Water in kitchen comes in so much we have to put basins on the ledge, then we have to empty them at least twice before we can go to bed because they are full in the morning…
That is a tenant in a brand new property, paying more than £9 a week. Water is coming into his place to such an extent that he has to put out bowls and basins to collect it.
A lady says that a pool of water collects on her bedroom floor every time it rains. She, too, is living in a brand new property built by the G.L.C. Another man says that he has to put up with water penetration, and he asks a rather pertinent question. He raises an issue to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not sit there and smirk. If he does not think that this is a real problem, he should go to Thamesmead and tell the tenants there that he is satisfied with what the G.L.C. has done. The hon. Gentleman will get pretty dusty response if he adopts that smirky attitude at Thamesmead.
The gentleman to whom I have referred asks who will pay for the £148 carpet that has virtually been ruined by the penetration of water into his brand new flat. The G.L.C. is not keen on paying the bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will intervene and say whether there is provision in the Bill for the payment of compensation to tenants who have been put to this discomfort and financial loss as a result of the faulty design of his council's property. If the G.L.C. will accept responsibility, I shall be delighted, but I know that the hon. Gentleman will sit silent because, like the famous Councillor Plummer's cheque book, there is no compensation for the tenant. They are told to grin and bear it, but they arc not going to. There will be a hell of a stink.
Another complaint is from a man who pays £10 a week in rent. He, too, complains about water penetration, and he ends by saying that the saddest thing is that no one has even bothered to call and see the trouble. No one from the G.L.C, or from Cubitts, the builders, has called to see him to discuss what can be done.
I say to the Minister that not only is there a financial scandal brewing at Thamesmead, but a social one, too. The social scandal arises from people being put into homes that are faulty in construction, to the extent of letting the rain in. The situation is outrageous.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Would my hon. Friend, with his considerable experience of housing in London, agree that complaints of this kind are made not only about newer properties, but that people make numerous complaints to the G.L.C. about the older properties, in particular, and find that nobody takes the slightest interest in them?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree that in my hon. Friend's constituency, with its older properties, that is a problem. The situation really is outrageous. But what I think is even more outrageous is that in brand new property, in which tenants have lived for only a week or two, this rain penetration is occurring, and yet we are being asked to provide more finance so that the G.L.C. can go even further

along the field and build identical properties, to the same design, and incorporating the same faults.

Mr. Ronald Brown: The Bill provides money to build more properties, but in my constituency the G.L.C. refuses to modernise about 150 homes in which people still have to bathe in the kitchen.

Mr. Wellbeloved: That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and no doubt, if my hon. Friend has an opportunity to take part in the debate, he will develop that. I think that I had better concentrate on Thamesmead, which is my responsibility as the Member representing that area.
These properties are not cheap. The proposal for the extension of stage three of Thamesmead is for another 1,412 units at a cost of £14,750,000. A quick calculation shows that the properties will average some £10,000-plus per unit. This is an enormous sum to pay for faulty property in which the tenants' furniture runs the risk of water damage. The Department of the Environment must look into the situation.
The residents at Thamesmead, who come from all walks of life, some of whom lived previously in appalling conditions, see in Thamesmead a vision for a better life. But I must warn the House, as the Thamesmead Residents Association has warned me, that this great enthusiasm for and vision of a new community will disappear unless adequate provision is made financially to right defects and to allow tenants to be compensated.
I hope that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone will tell the G.L.C. what has been said about Thamesmead tonight and will ask the council to consider two important matters. First, a crash programme to eradicate the faults that exist in these properties; secondly a programme of financial compensation for tenants who suffer personal loss. The council might even like to consider giving tenants a further rent rebate while they have to put up with the inconvenience.
We want to see Thamesmead develop into a happy community and become part and parcel of Erith and Crayford and of the London Borough of Bexley, but it will not develop in that way unless Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the G.L.C. get down to the


serious problems that confront my constituents at Thamesmead.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I did not intend to discuss the Bill in any detail, but since the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) drew attention to political issues, which are not strictly involved here, I feel that I should go into the matter a little deeper.
I wish to refer to the issue of open space which is dealt with in item 2 in the Schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) referred to the introduction of a statutory instrument. Although I had down a Prayer for some 39 days, the Government in an anti-democratic way refused to give time for a one-and-a-half hour debate on the matter. Had we debated the statutory instrument to authorise the transfer of the responsibility for open spaces from the G.L.C. to the London boroughs, we would have pointed out the relevant issues.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone said that the item in the schedule on open spaces would relate purely to lands in the ownership of the G.L.C. It might be of interest to know that of the 7,704 acres of open space previously owned by the G.L.C, only 2,788 acres has been handed over. They are retaining 4,924 acres. One would be happy if that figure reflected extra moneys for maintaining them. But it is interesting to see that the financial arrangements referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton were that whereas for those 4,924 acres the cost would be £2,100,000, for the 2,780 acres handed over to the London boroughs the cost would be £2,600,000. There is the interesting sum that for the transfer of 36 per cent. of the open space to the boroughs, the boroughs will pay 55 per cent. of the cost.
Somebody should explain that little exercise because the Government wilfully refuse to discuss it under the democratic procedures of the House, for which they will stand condemned. It has now been suggested that we could not discuss it under this item. We now see that for those 4,924 acres we are to have £830,000 for the first year and £375,000 allocated for the second six months.
I raise this subject in a general way, as the hon. Gentleman chose to highlight it,

but I go a little further. As he is a promoter of the G.L.C. I accept that he knows what he is saying. He says that this £830,000 is for the East End. As my constituency is right in the East End, let me tell him how wrong he must be. In the half of my constituency called Shoreditch, three areas of open space are allocated. One is Shepherdess Walk openspace, for which compulsory purchase orders have been outstanding since 1965. That is little more than 1½ acres. Another one is Shoreditch Park, about 24 acres, of which a very small part is at present under development, but this has been stopped since April. Then there is Haggerston Park, again about 24 acres, and again part of which has been completed. Those are the only open spaces in Shoreditch. They do not exist yet, but are planned.
But in my constituency they have developed and warehoused the people to a density of 136 persons to the acre. It was anticipated that, having warehoused people to that high density, the open space that goes with it would be provided. From 1964 I have continuously hammered the G.L.C. and the local boroughs to provide that open space. During many, many meetings about Shepherdess Walk, for instance, only about 1½ acres, I pestered, argued and rowed on two grounds. First, that the existing homes are in a distressing state and I could not get any of my constituents rehoused for any reason—even though one receives letters from the local authorities saying how distressing are their circumstances—because it was, I was told, a G.L.C. open space development and therefore, until the Council got control of the homes, if they were to move out any of these distressing cases others would move in, and the Council would have to continue rehousing them. I continually pressed for the open space to be created.
Finally, I saw the chairman of the appropriate committee in 1968 and he agreed that the Council would start this on a phase basis, of phases 1, 2 and 3, finishing, he hoped, by 1971. I wrote him a letter saying how grateful I was that at long last we were to start on this vast scheme of little more than 1½ acres.
It is true that by 1969 the first very small part was completed. It was very


costly. They got up to all sorts of silly antics. But, for the first time in Shore-ditch, there was a little green grass, and I was delighted to see it.
Then I waited and waited for phases 2 and 3 to be completed. I was not insensitive that, when the G.L.C. thought that it would have an opportunity of divesting itself of open spaces, it began to back off from the proposition.
I then came across an extraordinary document emanating from the Architects Department at County Hall which described the homes which I was trying to get pulled down and which were already the subject of compulsory purchase orders as houses of architectural merit. As one Conservative councillor said to me of that description, "You could have fooled me". As a result of this clever technique, it was referred back to the Council of the London Borough of Hackney asking the Council whether it wished the homes to be rehabilitated, this overlooking the fact that the area was zoned and should have had open space provided there.
The Hackney Borough Council was Conservative-controlled. I understand that it fought desperately with the G.L.C. but lost the day because Councillor, now Sir Desmond, Plummer was able to convince his colleagues on the Hackney Borough Council that it should not go ahead with open space but should consider rehabilitating. That was a good delaying tactic, but it took 12 months for his colleagues on the London Borough of Hackney finally to decide—in February, 1971–that it was too expensive to rehabilitate: it would cost about £2,500 a unit and, in their view, was uneconomic.
Hackney handed it back to the G.L.C. in February, 1971, well knowing that by 1st April, 1971, the G.L.C. would hand it back again, because this was one of the sites which was to be handed over by Ministerial action—I would almost say dictatorial action. The property was handed back to the London Borough of Hackney well knowing, as the Ministry must have known, that that borough had made no provision for continuing work on the open space at Shepherdess Walk. It had not provided the money, because it had no money, and it had not got a cat in hell's chance of rehousing these

people, because the borough had cut back its housing programme and could not house other families, let alone these people.
I asked the Minister whether he was aware of the distress that he was causing to my constituents in Shepherdess Walk. He received from them a deposition and a complaint telling him of their distress. I asked him whether he was aware of the delay that his transfer on 1st April had caused. Then, to my utter astonishment, he had the effrontery to tell me, "I am not aware that development of land in that area has been delayed". Either the Department is utterly incompetent or the G.L.C. did not tell the Minister the truth. One way or the other somebody should inquire how the Minister was allowed to give that reply when it was already obvious that he must have known that the borough council—his friends—had returned this property to the G.L.C. saying, "No deal. It is too expensive". He knew that on 1st April he had forced it back on to the borough council saying, "Whether you like it or not you are going to have it". He must, therefore, have been aware that the borough council was not in a position to carry out the phased programme which the G.L.C. already had for that open space site.
At the moment, we have less than one-sixth of the site with grass actually on it. I read in item 2 that £830,000 is to be spent in 12 months, presumably only for the East End of London, which suggests that other areas of London get nothing, yet the Council has been completely unable, since 1965, to develop less than two acres of land in my constituency.
Something is radically wrong with the Bill in these circumstances. We are right tonight seriously to question whether the Greater London Council is aware of what it is doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) and I have returned this evening from by-elections in our constituencies. A large number of people turned out. We have not heard the result yet, but it is a pretty sure bet that the people of Hackney, the people for whom we speak tonight, are telling the Government in no uncertain terms that they are not satisfied with either the Government or this Bill—

Mr. Lipton: Or the G.L.C.

Mr. Brown: —or the G.L.C. I do not believe that the £830,000 is for East London, but, if it is, I hope that the G.L.C. will immediately get on with that area of less than two acres at Shepherdess Walk, and the other things which need to be done for Shoreditch Park and Haggerston Park so that we can have some green grass in our area of East London.
Is it thought that the £830,000 will do the job? This surprises me, too. When we were discussing the transfer of open spaces, the one element the G.L.C. refused to give—I used to say that it was unable to give, but I am now satisfied that the right word is "refused"—was the cost of the transfer. Time and again, I warned the London boroughs of the hidden cost of this transfer which was not included in the financial agreement.
I pointed to a number of factors, not least the cost of buying out industry in areas zoned as open space, which would now be the responsibility of the ratepayers. I pointed to the problem of rehousing families from any of the properties within the open space area so zoned, another difficulty problem with which few London boroughs, certainly in Inner London, can possibly cope. The total cost of the rehabilitation and of buying out factories would fall directly on the rate payers of the areas concerned, but, because of the absurdity of the way things were arranged, we were never able to get the case across in the House as the Government refused to give us time to debate the Prayer which my hon. Friends and I had put down.
Now, item 21 in the Schedule,
Contributions to London Transport Executive towards special expenditure".
I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not explain that a little more clearly. We did not have it clear on second Reading either.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I did.

Mr. Brown: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Barbican station is still closed, and there is no evidence that it will be opened. It was closed because, according to the Greater London Council, it would have cost £8,000 in my constituency to keep it open. It is an area in

juxtaposition to the City, and, because the City closes down every evening at half-past six, and every weekend after Friday evening at half-past six, the G.L.C. decided that the constituents of Shore-ditch and Finsbury should be deprived of the opportunity of travelling by Underground, since the City was not working. I cannot see why £8 million in the first year and a further £4 million in the second six months should be allocated for special purposes when as far as a can gather those special purposes do not include providing an adequate service to meet my constituents' travel needs.
I have discussed the problem ad nauseam with the G.L.C., the City of London Corporation and the London Borough of Islington. The G.L.C. then instructed the London Transport Executive that it was to be financially viable and was not to support uneconomic social services. So in the same area as it has closed the Underground it has now withdraw bus services. My constituents now have to walk, because of the futile argument that the City of London is dead at night.
The City of London Corporation has the same powers as all the borough councils in London, but it has a population of only about 5,000. It will not spend its money to keep the Barbican station open. Many of its tenants live in my constituency. The tenants of its estates do not live in its own area but everyone else's. So the whole social cost of looking after the people who are tenants of the City Coropration is borne by the ratepayers of other areas. That rotten little borough will not give any help to its own tenants. I have to fight for them because they are my constituents.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. The provision of the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman purports to be referring is to provide, through the G.L.C, for capital expenditure for London Transport. With respect, I submit that his argument about the failure of certain boroughs to provide certain current subsidies is wholly out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is developing that point, he is going beyond the bounds of order.

Mr. Brown: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been listening, because he will follow the argument,


having been a Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that to go on building extra stations and at the same time to close stations such as the Barbican is a silly exercise. Someone must first decide whether the station is necessary, since the Barbican had the same sort of capital expenditure upon it and is now closed for two days of the week. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the matter is uninteresting.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My submission to you was not that the hon. Gentleman ever fails to be interesting but that he plainly was out of order.

Mr. Brown: We may agree, Mr. Speaker, that I am not out of order, but that I was very wise to raise the matter for the right hon. Gentleman's education.
The amount of money provided is unreasonable in that it will not go anywhere near meeting the cost of the work necessary, certainly in my constituency. In the London Borough of Hackney we have little or no Underground system, and we have very poor bus services. This causes great distress. To cross the constituency it is necessary to walk most of the way. I am at a loss to understand what the G.L.C. will spend the money on. The hon. Gentleman did not make the point, and I can only guess that there is not enough money available if it is to meet all the requirements in my constituency.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Does my hon. Friend consider that the problems which he has mentioned will be further exacerbated if the recommendation made by a Committee of the G.L.C, which the Council is to debate next Tuesday, on the withdrawal of cheap fares for children during peak hours—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That cannot possibly be in order.

Mr. Brown: I accept your Ruling of course, Mr. Speaker, but it is interesting to observe that because the figure is only £8 million, school children in my constituency have to pay full fare on buses if and when they can get them. If more money were available, the L.T.E. would not be forced to make this disgraceful suggestion at the behest of the Greater

London Council that school children on their way to school—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate on the Third Reading of the Bill. It is what is in the Bill, not what is not in the Bill, that the hon. Member is entitled to discuss.

Mr. Brown: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, and the point I was making was that the £8 million will clearly not satisfy the needs of London. I should have thought that one of the special expenditures in a Bill of this kind would have been to enable children to travel to school at a child's fare, but the Bill does not once—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to an item of capital expenditure. That is what is in the Bill.

Mr. Brown: That is the point I am making—that the capital expenditure should be more clearly delineated. The Bill does not say what its purpose is and so we have to estimate.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend could discuss whether the capital expenditure is sufficient to contribute towards the buying of any necessary printing machines required for the special passes and forms needed for special facilities for pensioners and children having reduced fares. That may well be interesting.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to draw my attention to that, but as you feel, Mr. Speaker, that I have explored that item sufficiently, I will move on.
Part III of the Schedule speaks of "for other purposes". Perhaps hon. Members opposite who are making so much noise are knowledgeable about the purpose of the £15 million being set aside by this provision. It is difficult to get information from the G.L.C. and I regret that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone did not tell us, for I do not know why there should be this £15 million when only £830,000 is to be spent on all the open space development in London and the green belt to boot. There is already an item "sundry charges", and yet this vast sum of £15 million is tucked away. This is a classic example of this sort of provision and I am delighted that we chose to examine the Bill.
The Bill is shrouded in mystery. I support it because I favour local government having the right to do exactly what it wants, and I have defended that right throughout the last 20 years. But when a local authority asks the House for vast sums of money when the Government are cutting everything they can cut and when they are putting up the price of children's milk, it seems a little odd for permission to be given for money to be spent in this way without our being told on what the money is to be spent.
Further Mr. Speaker there are the odd priorities we see in the Bill. The Council is providing £2 million for the Inner London Education Authority, which does an immense amount of excellent work. It does good work in my constituency. I do not complain of that allocation. But I do not understand the £15 million to be devoted to "other purposes". Those purposes must be known to the Greater London Council. It provides sufficient money for anything that the House determines needs to be done between now and 31st March, 1972, but then it puts in another £15 million for 12 months, and another £7,500,000 after that, for unspecified things.
I hope that I have shown the necessity for the Greater London Council, when it next presents a Money Bill, to be courteous enough to give explanations for the expenditure of such vast sums of money. I ask the council to show understanding of the great problems facing London people. The Bill shows a lack of such a understanding and I hope that next year the council's approach will be much more serious.

12.7 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): It might be for the convenience of the House if I were now to intervene in what has been described as a "ding dong" between the two sides. In so far as the hon. Members opposite have made points that are relevant to my Department, I shall be very happy to look into those points and deal with them, if necessary in writing. But I must remind the House that this is a G.L.C. Bill, a Private Bill. It has been considered by a Private Bill Committee, and that Private Bill Committee advised that the Bill

should be given a Third Reading. I must say on behalf of the Government that that is our view. We accept the Bill, and commend it to the House for Third Reading. So at this late hour it might for the advantage of all concerned if I deal with the utmost brevity with some of the points that have arisen in so far as they concern my Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) made some extremely important and constructive points about the finance of local government. I cannot tell him exactly when the Green Paper on Local Government Finance will be available, but I can assure him that it will be available as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) asked about the Fleet Line. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I am bound to say that, the hon. Member having indulged himself in a speech that went on for some 20 minutes, at a guess—which to some of us seemed like 50 minutes—I find it a little curious that he should not have waited for the reply I had hoped to give on the points he raised.

Mr. Wellbeloved: It may be that my hon. Friend has gone out to prepare his speech on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill, in which I know he also takes an interest.

Mr. Griffiths: It is very encouraging to hear that the hon. Gentleman felt it more important to prepare yet another harangue, rather than to wait courteously for the answers to the harangue he has already given. Very briefly, I say to the hon. Gentleman that we are looking very carefully at the question of investment in the proposed Fleet line, and we shall be guided by a desire to achieve value for money and to look at the implications for the South-East generally and the development of the London docklands in particular. I see no point in going further in the absence of the hon. Gentleman.
Then we had the effusion of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). He spoke of the noble vision of Thamesmead and then pro-ceded to describe it as a social disaster, a runaway financial disaster and a scandal. He made two essential points. One concerned cost escalation. We all regret


cost escalation, but I have not noticed him or his party resisting some of the inflationary wage increases which have led to the cost inflation about which he complains. The hon. Gentleman spoke of damp. He even waved a placard complaining of damp. I well understand the feeling of his constituents, for I too have constituents who complain about damp in their houses. But it was not the Conservative G.L.C. which invented damp. I am advised that this scheme was conceived and probably begun while the hon. Gentleman's party was in charge of County Hall.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would turn aside from his political points and tell the House whether the G.L.C. intends in stage three to carry on with exactly the same design which has proved faulty on stages one and two.

Mr. Griffiths: The short answer is that that is a matter for the G.L.C. to decide. But my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction intends to hold a conference with the London housing authorities shortly to discuss all these and related problems. The hon. Gentleman would do best to wait until that conference has taken place when these matters will be discussed.
I notice that the hon. Member for Acton has returned to the Chamber. I made some aspersions about his absence. In view of his return, I withdraw them.

Mr. Spearing: I apologise for not being here when the hon. Gentleman made some remarks on my speech, but I did not remember that he had the right to intervene in this debate before other hon. Members who I thought might try to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.

Mr. Griffiths: I understand. I am glad that so much concord is breaking out on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Browne) spoke about parks. They, too, are a matter for the G.L.C., but insofar as the hon. Member's speech touched on matters for which my Department bears a responsibility, I will read his speech carefully and will write to him about any points relating to my responsibilities.

Mr. Lipton: I made one or two remarks about parks and open spaces, too. I hope that, having waited patiently to hear the Minister's reply, he will at least mention that I raised some points about parks and open spaces and that whatever he communicates to my hon. Friend will be communicated to me.

Mr. Griffiths: I assure the hon. Gentleman that his speech is among the first that I read when I open HANSARD whenever he has taken part in a debate. I give him the same assurance as I have given the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury.
The only other matter remaining for me to mention—it was raised by the hon. Members for Acton and Erith and Crayford—concerns the Thames barrier. Although home hon. Members would have preferred it to be lower down the river and others would have preferred it to be higher up the river, we have reached a decision with the G.L.C. and all the navigational interests that the best place for it is in the Silvertown Reach. We have made a decision in consultation with all concerned in favour of a rising sector barrier.
The reasons for this are simple. The hon. Gentleman does not need to devise a great detective story about it. We chose the rising sector because, first, we know it will be reliable; secondly, it will cost about £12 million less than the alternative; thirdly, it will take a year less to construct and, fourthly,—and I place considerable reliance on this—it will be relatively unobtrusive in appearance compared with the enormous portcullis of a drop-gate. There is no case whatever for any other type of barrier or any other site on the river.
I assure the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who is right to represent the views of his constituents about the wall raising downstream from the barrier, that the Government, working closely with the riparian authorities, the Thames River Authority, the Port of London Authority and the G.L.C, are just as sensitive to this problem as he is and will do their utmost to ensure that his constituents and the constituents of all hon. Members representing London constituencies are well served by this Thames tidal barrier.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I wish to make three points on the Bill and one preliminary point in relation to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker), who was determined, unhappily, to make a number of political points rather than to explain the Bill. He relied largely on his imagination rather than on facts. He referred to me personally by stating that the Hackney Central Labour Party had decided not to select me again. Where he got that information from I do not know. It is probably as reliable as other information—

Mr. Kenneth Baker: It was just my hope.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Gentleman must be disappointed, because I was unanimously re-selected last Thursday. So much for the hopes of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone. He may not be so fortunate if the Conservative Party at St. Marylebone is wise.
Item 10 of the Schedule refers to the Coroners Act, 1887, the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, the London Government Act, 1963 and the Administration of Justice Act, 1964. As I understand, it is the duty of the G.L.C. to provide court buildings in Outer London and also other accommodation, furniture and books for magistrates' courts. Some of the courts in Outer London are a disgrace. One only has to mention Willesden, Barnet and Ealing to illustrate the surroundings in which the public, advocates and magistrates are expected to undertake their duties. The House is entitled to an explanation of how this money is to be expended. Are these outmoded courts where the conditions and facilities are outrageous to be changed? The hon. Member for St. Marylebone will perhaps give the House information about that.
The second point I wish to raise relates to item 11 of the Schedule,
Housing Act 1957 and other Acts relating to housing
dealing with the
Acquisition of property, erection of dwellings and other purposes".
Those purposes presumably include repairs. In my constituency—and I am sure that this must happen in St. Marylebone

as well—many of my constituents who live in G.L.C. blocks, particularly the older ones, complain to me bitterly about the neglect which they suffer when they make complaints about the conditions of the properties. This must happen to every hon. Member who represents a London constituency with G.L.C. blocks in it.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Mr. Selwyn Gummer (Lewisham, West) indicated dissent.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) shakes his head. He is fortunate because in at least three of the old blocks in my constituency—Morn-ingside, Pembury Estate and Kings Mead Estate—where conditions are appalling, people complain to me constantly that despite the fact that they make complaints to the housing department, they are persistently ignored.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I think that the hon. Gentleman will be fair and accept that this complaint could equally be levelled against the Labour-controlled London County Council, because the administration for looking after tenants' complaints was and is bad.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am not seeking to make a party point. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so sensitive. He obviously shares my experience about constituents' complaints. I think that if the hon. Member for Lewisham, West were fair about this, he would confess that experience too, because it happens day in and day out. People's needs are being constantly neglected.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I find it difficult to understand what precisely this has to do with the Bill. When I shook my head earlier, it was really to indicate my feeling that this subject is rather a long way from the Bill.

Mr. Clinton Davis: It is directly related to item 11 of the Schedule.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: It is about revenue, not capital.

Mr. Clinton Davis: That is a matter for the Chair and not the hon. Gentleman.
The G.L.C. should give urgent attention to this matter because the complaints of these tenants should be dealt


with. Perhaps there is an inadequacy of workers available to carry out the work; perhaps there is an inadequacy of staff to deal with the day-to-day requirements of the housing department. But this is something to which the G.L.C. must turn its attention. The discontent being expressed is but a ripple now compared with what I think is going to be a flood tide.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Does not my hon. Friend think that the situation has been exacerbated by the Government's decision to transfer some of the G.L.C. properties to the boroughs? The result has been that many of the staff who should be available for maintenance with the G.L.C. have been transferred to the boroughs.

Mr. Clinton Davis: That may well be so, but this is a long-term matter which has been going on for a number of years. I am sure that the situation will have been aggravated by that decision.
I hope that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone, if he has a right of reply, will give these matters some consideration or, if not, that they will be considered very carefully by the G.L.C.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Alan Green: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I move this Motion formally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Bill has been well discussed, although I realise that there are some points still to be answered.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It is regrettable that we should have to discuss the Bill again, especially at this hour of the morning. I shall endeavour to be as brief as I can. But this is a bad Bill which, quite rightly, is not being allowed to pass easily through the House. My hon. Friends are not opposing its

Third Reading only because there is no viable alternative before the House and the Port of Liverpool. Without it, we recognise that the port could well close. Even with the Bill, the problems of the Port of Liverpool will not be solved satisfactorily. The Bill is unfair to investors and to port workers, and it places Liverpool Docks in a peculiar situation. In the last debate, one of my hon. Friends suggested that there should be a full inquiry into how the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board got itself into its present difficulties. I am still convinced that that suggestion should be adopted.
A number of interesting casualities have arisen in this affair. For example, it is proposed that members of the previous Board should not sit on any future Board without the agreement of the Minister. The present director-general, who has been in that position only for a short time, is retiring fairly early. What is more, the deputy chairman of the new Board is to take up an appointment with the Steel Board. That is a strange appointment, in view of the present circumstances of the port.
The hand of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may be seen in this situation. It is interesting to note that, when my right hon. and hon. Friends were in office, the hon. Gentleman came to Liverpool and put forward a scheme which, in many respects, is very similar to the Bill before us.
The Bill turns the Dock Board into a private company. But I do not think that it offers any long-term solution to the problems of the Liverpool Docks.
In the last debate, we discussed Clause 8 in some detail. Since then, we have seen a letter from the Minister and the Promoters have made Amendments indicating that there has been a serious attempt to meet the points raised in that debate. But the fact should be brought out that the Liverpool Corporation held a special meeting yesterday and passed a resolution by 131 votes to 6. Incidentally, it was supported by the majority and minority parties. Only the Liberals voted against it, since they wanted to go much further in their opposition than the two main parties.
The resolution was in three parts, the first of which made it clear that the city council felt that it must oppose the Bill unless outstanding points of disagreement


could be settled. This is not a case of all-out opposition to the Bill, therefore.
The second part said that the chairman and deputy chairman of the City Council's major committee—I think that it is the Finance and Policy Committee—together with the leader of the Labour Party, Alderman Sefton, were authorised to agree to any settlement which could be reached.
The third part of the resolution was that, in the event of a settlement not being reached, the City Council would go ahead with its opposition. So the whole matter can easily be resolved by a settlement between the City Council and the promoters of the Bill.
The City Council is concerned about the situation because, during the course of discussions with representatives of the board, it was clearly told that the board had no general duty to operate the port; it had a duty to do only three things: first, to maintain the landing stage, which is of importance to the City of Liverpool anyway; secondly, to maintain the cut to the Leeds and London canal; and, thirdly—the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) will be interested in this, but he probably knows it—to maintain certain sewers in Wallasey. These were the statutory obligations which the Board argued that it had to carry out, but did not have to go beyond.
In today's Liverpool Daily Post the Board's chairman, Mr. John Cuckney, is reported as saying:
Under previous arrangements"—
that is under the 1857 statute—
the Dock Board did not in fact have a statutory obligation, in so many words, to keep the port operating. The obligation was implicit.
It is the implied duty about which the Liverpool City Council is concerned and regards as of immense importance.
It would be a bad thing if the Dock Board had power to wind up the port operations at any time. I stress that the major matter of concern to the City Council is the continuing operation of the port.
In the article to which I referred, Mr. Cuckney also said that the Bill is modelled on the Port of London Authority Bill. That may be so, but I understand

that that Bill clearly states that the Port of London could only be wound up with the consent of Parliament.
The city council's position is outlined in a letter from Stanley Holmes, the Chief Executive and Town Clerk of Liverpool, dated 1st July, in which he says:
The Corporation's real concern is to ensure that under the new company the port must continue unless there is further recourse to Parliament first. If the Corporation can be satisfied that the proposed amendments in the House of Lords referred to in the letter from the Minister for Transport Industries do, in fact, give the necessary protection, the petition will not proceed.
I may appear to be making heavy weather of this matter, but it is of importance when a city the size of Liverpool, by a decision of 131 to six, feels so deeply concerned, that, in the interests of the port, of the city and of the people of Merseyside, the matter should be resolved as quickly as possible.
My next point concerns the investors. This matter is causing a great deal of hardship. A lady came to see me at my constituency surgery last Saturday morning. She told me that all her savings, which amounted to £3,000, had been put into the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. She had expected to receive that money back this year, and some of it would have been reinvested, but now she finds that although she was relying on getting the money back, because she wanted it for certain reasons of her own, it is not available to her.
I have here a letter from the trustees for Methodist Church Purposes. It was sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), and perhaps I may quote from it:
Furthermore the observations of Mr. Edgar Fay, Q.C., as quoted in the press, seem to suggest that ' financial institutions which are entitled to their money' are not hardship cases. This type of reasoning makes us increasingly concerned because as a Board of Custodian Trustees we represent a number of smallholders for whom the loss of capital, as well as reduced income would constitute a real hardship.
In our letter to the Prime Minister we ventured to point out that our holdings in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board are in the nature of contractual loans and it was not, therefore, expected that they would be subject to the risks of the ordinary equity market. Such contractual loans have always been regarded as good Trustee securities even though, as we fully appreciated, no Government is


obliged to guarantee them. Our fundamental concern is that this way of escape from financial obligations should be facilitated, when it would not be tolerated in private behaviour.
We fully recognised that some measure is called for if the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is to be preserved but with respect we think the basis of any financial measure should be a long term solution designed to salvage the position rather than a short term solution which rescues the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board at the expense of those who in all good faith have entrusted their money to them.
I think that the position of the small investors is of the gravest importance, and in other circumstances it is possible that those who were involved in this affair would have been brought before the courts on a charge of fraud. I am serious about that, and I do not think that the Bill should go through the House without the whole matter being aired, again, even at this late hour, because we should never forget what is being allowed to happen in this House.
My hon. Friends and I are deeply concerned about the future employment position of the workers in the Port of Liverpool. We come from an area which has 40,000 unemployed workers. If any section of workers in the port is affected by the closure of the South End Docks sooner than expected, that will have a serious effect on the whole employment position on Merseyside.
We believe that the Bill is not the answer to the problem. We believe that the real answer is to bring the Port of Liverpool under public ownership. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), in his Second Reading speech, suggested that the port should be municipalised. In a sense that is a form of public ownership, and it was a recognition of the fact that the real solution to the problem lies in bringing the port under public control.
We shall let the Bill go through, but we shall do so under protest. We shall not vote against it, but, if there were a vote, we should have to vote against it, because this is a bad Bill. It is basically a Government Bill, and it is a Bill which should never have been brought before the House of Commons.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Michael English: I will not go over all the ground covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but there is one small point I wish to add.
I should like first to thank the Minister for Transport Industries for the comprehensive way in which he circulated all the people who spoke in the last debate with the precise position on the point we raised about operating the port. I should like also to thank the promoters for letting hon Members have the text of their Amendments.
I have looked at that Amendment, as have my hon. Friends, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Sir A. Irvine), a former Solicitor-General, says that in his view that the Amendments conform to the assurances given by the Minister for Transport Industries.
An argument appears to have arisen subsequently because the assurance was that existing duties would be continued in the new Act. We said in the previous debate that the existing duties were being diminished by the new Bill. The question now is what are the existing duties. I am glad to see the Solicitor-General present because this possibly is a point for him. If he looks at the proceedings in Committee, he will see that although the point was not discussed in detail in Committee, the Committee was given the impression—I put it no higher—that the existing Acts provided for a statutory duty to operate the port. The Town Clerk of Liverpool seems to be suggesting that he has been told by the promoters that that is not the case and that the statutory duty provides only for the points which were mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Frankly, I do not know about the situation. I am now somewhat confused. As one who served on the Select Committee, I had the impression that there was a statutory duty to operate the port and that this was the reason that all the assets of the port could not be taken into the receivership. It now seems that there is some argument about the existing duties, and I am satisfied that the Minister and the promoters have carried out their assurances.
The point that worries me—and I gather it also worries the Liverpool City Council—is the technical point of how far the existing duty provides for the operation of the port. A port such as Liverpool, which is one of the primary ports in the country, should not be capable of being extinguished by the liquidation of the company. I do not know whether in


that way it could be extinguished as a port, but it should be put beyond shadow of a doubt that this could not be possible without parliamentary approval. I hope that we will hear from the Solicitor-General on this matter. I hope the Minister will go a little further than his original assurance and say that the port of Liverpool should not cease to exist without Parliament's approval, because that is what the argument is primarily about.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. James A. Dunn: We are obliged to the Minister for Transport Industries for the way that he wrote to us fulfilling the obligation that he undertook during the verbal exchanges in the House on 21st June. The way in which he gave assurances may have given rise to the anxiety expressed by the Liverpool City Council—rather belatedly, but nevertheless expressed—in a letter that it sent on 25th June to Members representing Liverpool constituencies and other interested Members, in which the Council said that following the debate in the House on 21st June, on the 23rd June the appropriate committee asked that a recommendation be made to the city council that a petition be made on the Bill when it reaches the other place.
At no time during the deliberations on the Bill has the Liverpool City Council sought to make any representations other than this. It would be wrong of me not to say that I view this with some anxiety. Ample opportunity has been given, and at this late hour, to voice some complex legal problems, in a letter and in discussions by Liverpool City Council yesterday, shows that the awareness of the city council occurred rather late. I should have wished that this would have been dealt with differently.
During our representations in the House to the right hon. Gentleman, we may not have obtained all that we wished, but he gave us something that we asked for, and we may have caused him additional work. We apologise for that, but it was beyond our control.
In our discussions, running through our minds has been the thought that the Bill contains some rather unpalatable provisions that, under different circumstances, we should have wished to discuss. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, given the choice between voting for or

against the Bill, if those were the only choices, we should be compelled to vote against it on principle. There were other methods of dealing with this problem. But we have to face things as they are and not as we would wish them to be. My concern, shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends, is to come to terms with a very bad Bill and to get the Receiver out of the port, discharged of his duties as quickly as possible, so that we may attempt to restore confidence in the Port of Liverpool as soon as possible, thereby contributing to the easing of the potential unemployment which might follow if we do not do something about it now.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said, we have a great problem already, and this must bear very heavily upon our minds when we reach this point of decision. If there were to be major redundancies in the port rather quickly and the figures were in hundreds rather than just a few, not only would those employed in the port be affected but also those in the ancillary services attached to the port, which would be gravely affected. This was have disastrous consequences in our area. On that basis also, very reluctantly, we do not voice all that we would wish to say. Even say it now may delay the restoration of confidence in the port.
The promoters very kindly sent us copies of the Amendments which they propose to lay before the authorities in the other place. They meet the requirements expressed in the House which were received with good grace and assurances. Nevertheless, I urge the Minister even at this late hour to seek to prevail upon the promoters to be reasonable in the approaches which will have to be made to those who may wish to petition. I do not want the Bill to be delayed over long. If the procedure is delayed over long, the receiver will stay in the port for much longer than is expected; and, if the Bill is not through its final stages by July, it may not get through this Session.
I again stress the disastrous consequences this would have upon Merseyside and upon the national economy, because it would affect all our export trade. The port is one of Britain's largest exporting ports.
The fundamental issue is that those who act on behalf of the Board have not communicated in the proper manner to the Liverpool City Council exactly what the new proposed Amendment entails. The interpretation appears to be at fault. I should be failing in my duty if I did not voice the anxieties of the Liverpool City Council and ask the Minister to take the opportunity through the Solicitor-General to give guidance on this point and tell us whether the Amendments which have been circulated, supported by the assurance contained in the latter dated 24th June, comply with the views that the Liverpool City Council have expressed.
The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) was the sponsor in this House on behalf of the promoters. I have learned that he is suffering from some indisposition. I hope that through the channels that exist our good wishes will be conveyed to the hon. Member. We bear him no malice for the fact that he brought to us a chalice from which we do not want to drink.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: I associate myself at the outset with what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) has said about the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple). We hope that the hon. Member will speedily recover.
We notice that once again it appears not to have been found possible to find a Merseyside Member to sponsor the Bill.

Mr. Green: I am from Lancashire.

Mr. Dell: Yes, but not Merseyside. We have argued against the Bill in the House, for two principal reasons. The first is the injustice it causes to small investors. The Government's decision to sustain the Port of Liverpool, in so far as it is sustained by the Bill, is at the expense of the small investors. This point has been argued not merely by hon. Members on this side but by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. Indeed, many hon. Members opposite have said at various stages during the discussion on the Bill that they could not give it their support.
Despite the complete absence of support for the Bill in all parts of the House, remarkably enough it has made its progress to Third Reading and will soon be

in their Lordships' House. It is remarkable how the absence of support on the benches opposite has altered in no way this disastrously bad Bill. It is causing hardship. The example my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) gave is only one example of a very large number of possible examples that have come to the attention of hon. Members of the hardship caused by the Bill to people who were in no way responsible for the calamity that befell the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.
It is arguable that equity shareholders in companies are responsible for the fate of their companies and, therefore, must suffer if those companies go down just as they profit if the companies prosper. These investors in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board were responsible in no conceivable way for the fate which faced the Board last autumn.
The second ground on which we criticise the Bill is that it does not secure the future of the port. Even if, with the Amendments proposed to be made in the other place, it is adequately worded, it still provides no sufficient guarantee of the future of the Port of Liverpool.
The primary reason why the Bill has been opposed on Third Reading tonight has been the need to discuss a little further the point which has recently—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said, belatedly—been raised by the Liverpool City Council as to whether the Bill even as now proposed to be amended gives sufficient guarantee that the port could not in any circumstances be shut down without the authority of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton quoted some words of Mr. Cuckney as reported in today's Liverpool Daily Post. I shall quote another part of what Mr. Cuckney is reported to have said:
In the Bill we have written in statutory obligations modelled very closely on those of the Port of London Authority. They are not entirely watertight because, if they were, they would upset the representatives of the security-holders, who would see a possibility of their money being poured down the drain while the port was maintained at all costss. It is a matter of reaching an acceptable compromise, and I am sure we can do that.
I have argued in the debates on the Bill that the way in which this statutory company has been established has created


a conflict of interest between the future of the port, on the one hand, and the interests of the security holders, on the other. Here is another example. If he is accurately reported, it seems that Mr. Cuckney is saying that the future of the port cannot be made water-tight because that would be unacceptable to the security holders.
From the point of view of the national interest, from the point of view of Merseyside, and of employment on Merseyside, it is the future of the port which must have primacy. It is wrong that that future should have been made to conflict with or be associated with the interests of the security holders who found themselves conscripted into this statutory company by the Bill. Our requirement—not a requirement just of Merseyside but of the country—is the maintenance of the Port of Liverpool, so that the port may continue to give proper service to Britain's imports and exports and to the economy of the North-West.
One question arises as a result of the conflict. It may have been sufficient for the old legislation to provide simply for such requirements of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board as it did, but it is at least arguable that, in view of this new facet of the situation and the interests of the security holders, the statutory provisions should be stronger, not simply equivalent to those in the old legislation.
I think that it is this point which the Liverpool City Council has argued, not that the Minister has not fulfilled his undertaking to ensure that the requirements are as strong as they were but that, in these new circumstances, the guarantees should be even stronger than they were so that there can be no question in any circumstances of the Port of Liverpool being closed without the consent of Parliament.
I think that the Solicitor-General has got the point, and I hope that he will be able to give us a sufficient guarantee on it. If he cannot, the City of Liverpool will clearly feel it necessary to petition against the Bill in the House of Lords, and obviously if that can be prevented it will be to the benefit of the process of the Bill through its remaining stages.

1.0 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The principal question raised by hon. Members tonight is that concerning the proposed powers of the company that is to be set up by the Bill, and the effectiveness of those powers to meet the anxieties expressed by them and by the City of Liverpool.
As a Member who formerly had the privilege of representing a constituency on Merseyside, I shall try to reply to the point as clearly and firmly as possible, conscious of the importance to Merseyside in its widest sense of an assurance for the continued future of the Port of Liverpool. I do so without responding to the temptation to deal with the wider and more general matters that hon. Members have raised.
I challenge the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) that the Bill is disastrous. There is understandably a concern that it should secure not only fair prospects for the investors but also a fair assurance for all those who work and depend upon the port of Liverpool, so far as it can be done. I think that all hon. Members now agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) that the one thing that would be disastrous would be the prospect of further delay for the Bill in its passage through the other place.
Perhaps I may say something about the purely legal position. It is clear from what hon. Members have said that several different points are raised. First, what, if any, are the duties of the Board as it now is? Second, what are to be the duties of the proposed company to be established by the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman was anxious that its duties should not be simply as strong as those of the Board but stronger. The third question is, what difference is made in the duties by the proposed Amendments circulated by the promoters?
If we look in the long chain of Statutes that underlie the present state of the Board, we cannot find any statement of a general duty imposed upon it, apart from the three to which hon. Members have referred. We find an accumulation of powers being conferred upon the Board, as a result of which Parliament gave the Board yet further rights to


raise money, acquire land and so on. This pattern is continued right up to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Seaforth Works) Act, 1966. We find there, attached to the power to carry out, "construct, place and maintain"—and so on, the Seaforth works, the proposition that the Board shall execute such works in accordance with the plans laid before Parliament, and an additional power that the Board
may from time to time maintain, renew, enlarge, alter, reconstruct
and so on, the Seaforth works. I refer to that as being the most recent in this long chain of Statutes giving powers to the Board to construct works.
The effect in law of that series of powers being conferred on the Board is not merely to give the Board its enabling power to construct and maintain; it has to be coupled with the fact that it is given in the existing Statutes no power to discontinue. As "hon. Members have pointed out, there is no provision for winding up or discontinuance of the Board in the existing Statutes.
Taking all these matters together and remembering the central proposition that powers conferred for one purpose cannot be used for another, conflicting, purpose, the law as to the present position of the Board is plain—that it operates under clearly implied duties which can be spelled out from the case to which hon. Members have referred in the letter sent by my right hon. Friend, the Salisbury Market case, in which it was clearly stated and this is the central proposition that, to quote Mr. Justice Buckley—[1969] 1 Ch. 354:
It has long been recognised that where a company has been incorporated by a special Act of Parliament for the purpose of providing some service, such as a railway, for the public benefit, the incorporating statute may, by inference if not expressly, impose a statutory duty on the company to establish and maintain the service in question, with the consequence that the company cannot properly dispose of any asset, such as part of its railway line, which is necessary for the maintenance of that service.
That is the position of the Board as it now stands.
Put simply in another way, in more graphic words from Mr. Justice Buckley's
judgment, if the company is to carry on with all its incidental powers,
Death is not an incident of life.

The life conferred on the Board by the existing statutes does not confer upon the Board the power to extinguish it.
The point of anxiety is what change is made by the Bill. Hon. Members will notice that Clause 8 contains a specific statement of duty, a more express statement of duty than any previously laid upon the Board. It says:
It shall be the duty of the Company to take such action as it considers necessary or desirable for or incidental to the maintenance, operation and improvement of the docks and the conservancy of the port of Liverpool…
We have here a firm assertion of duty. It is in the same form, as hon. Members have observed, as that contained in the Port of London Act, 1968, and in the same form as that contained in the Transport Act, 1962, giving to the company, alongside a statement of duty, an element of judgment to take such action as it considers necessary or desirable.
The Transport Act 1962 says:
It shall be the duty of the British Transport Docks Board in the exercise of their powers under this Act to provide, to such extent as they may think expedient, port facilities at the harbours owned or managed by the Board.
One plainly has to have, in order to secure this balance between effective commercial management and the underlying duty, an element of discretion of that kind vested in the company. That is the position which emerges from the present provisions in the Bill. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) would acknowledge the necessity for this balance because of the case which he argued previously about the extent to which the old Board was overwhelmed by the demands of the users—and I simplify his case—tending to disregard the other interests. What we are concerned with is not to go too far in the other direction.
The other point still concerning hon. Members is the clear statement that the provisions of Part IX of the Companies Act should apply to the new company so that it may be wound up and therefore the powers of a liquidator under Section 245 of the Companies Act be said to apply to it.
As the law is, even without any change in the Bill as it stands that is not a real anxiety, because when a company is under a statutory duty of the kind I have explained, the court will not allow the destruction of the tree that bears the fruit


and, as the Salisbury Market case makes clear, and there are many others going back over a century, a statutory company with a statutory duty cannot have that duty over-ridden by mere exercise of the power to wind up and appoint a liquidator, and certainly the liquidator cannot exercise his powers so as to dispose of necessary assets.
So even on an analysis of what the powers of the company as proposed amount to, there need be no anxiety about the possibility of the company escaping the duty, and of its being wound up, without the necessity for reference to this House. But the anxiety has been expressed, and hon. Members will appreciate that the Amendments proffered by the promoters are twofold—

Mr. Heffer: When the hon. and learned Gentleman talks of reference to the House, can he say what form that reference to the House will take?

The Solicitor-General: Legislation. The Bill, if it goes through, will establish the company, subject to the duties laid out in Clause 8 which, as I say, are much more specific than the duties contained in the existing legislation. Because of the proposition of law that a company subject to these duties cannot be wound up and liquidated so as to destroy its primary purpose, for those duties to be changed it would be necessary to promote further legislation. That is quite clear.
But if one takes it a stage further by reference to the proposed Amendments, hon. Members will appreciate that the proposed Amendment to Clause 8 is to the effect that subsection (1) of that Clause shall not derogate from the obligation of the Board under the existing Acts to maintain, operate and improve the docks, and the conservancy of the Port of Liverpool, and so on. There is a duty in the existing Acts, although not explicit, and that duty is not to be derogated from, under that proposed Amendment.
The second proposed Amendment is perhaps more important from the point of view of reassurance, because it proposes to make plain that the ordinary powers of a liquidator under Section 245 of the Companies Act shall not be exercisable in respect of this statutory company so as to dispose of assets which are necessary for the continued performance of its duties. Hon. Members will appreciate

that when one says that in the exercise of powers under Section 245 of the Companies Act, 1948, no part of the real or personal property of the company which is required for the performance by the Company of the duties to which it is for the time being subject shall be sold, it makes clearer the second point about which there has been some continuing anxiety.

Mr. English: I am perfectly happy with what the Solicitor-General has said so far. He seems to be supporting the view given to the Committee on the existing statutory duties. What is puzzling us now is the view expressed in one letter from the Town Clerk of Liverpool, which states:
… and since the Board contend that these
—that is, the existing statutory duties:
only relate to the maintenance
—and then he mentions three specific things which are much more limited than either the view given to the Committee by the lawyers appearing before it or those given by the hon. and learned Gentleman. There seems to be a conflict of legal view, and I bow to the hon. and learned Gentleman's eminence and that of the people who came before us. The town clerk says that the Board is contending to him that it is only limited, whereas the Board's lawyers contended to us that it was wider.

The Solicitor-General: That was why there was some misunderstanding which I hope I have resolved. It appears that the points put by the town clerk in his letter refer to specific statutory duties, whereas the point put to me by the hon. Member concerned the nature of the general duty. That was the point put to the hon. Gentleman in his capacity as a member of the Committee. The general duty of the Board is a duty to maintain, implicit from the powers it has accumulated over the years. The general duty of the company is of a similar quality but is made more explicit by Clause 8 of the Bill.
Taking the third point, the duty of the company as modified by the two proposed Amendments is plainly one to maintain the operation of the port subject to its discretion as to the factors affecting its management, and it is a duty which cannot be disposed of save by reference back to Parliament.
It would seem to me that it is not necessary to go further in order to make assurance, not merely doubly, but trebly sure. I can understand that people have wanted to be satisfied about it. The hon. Member for Walton said that the matter can be easily resolved by settlement. I suggest that there is now no need of a substantial change, that the balance suggested in one of the earlier letters from the town clerk of Liverpool has been achieved, and that the assurance that Parliamentary intervention would be necessary if the Port of Liverpool were to face the prospect of closure, which is quite unthinkable, can be given. I hope that on that basis the House will be willing to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

ROADS (CLASSES OF TRAFFIC)

1.17 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I beg to move,
That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.
I suggest that we should also discuss the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (Scotland) Order, 1971.
The effect of these Orders is to allow additional categories of vehicles to use the motorways. The most important of these categories is the locomotive, which is a legal term meaning vehicles not designed to carry a load themselves and weighing more than 7¼ tons. The purpose of these locomotives is to haul trailers containing a load. As things now stand, when the load is abnormal, so long as that load is indivisible—for example, a long concrete beam or a heavy cable drum—the locomotive is already allowed on the motorway; but when the locomotive is travelling solo or is hauling a normal load, such as a consignment of metal castings, it is, curiously enough, at present forbidden. These Orders will remove this anomaly. They will make it lawful for this type of tractor to be driven on the motorway.
The other categories included are vehicles for moving excavated material—for example, in construction work—and

vehicles which are built here for use outside the United Kingdom and therefore have an export importance. In all cases there is a condition that the vehicle should be capable of a minimum speed of 25 miles an hour.
There are good reasons for making this change. The operators have told us that the present situation is not only very inconvenient but increases their costs substantially and, in addition, the alternative routes that they are compelled to use with these large vehicles often pass through densely populated and highly industrialised areas or through our historic towns. In such places these larger vehicles can cause considerable congestion and delay, thus increasing costs to the community generally.
The House will wish to be assured that road safety will not be adversely affected. The total number of vehicles involved amounts only to a few thousand, and very few are likely to be on the motorways at any one time. Most of them can maintain a speed of 35–45 m.p.h. and thus fit into the slower stream of commercial vehicles without difficulty.
In short, I see no reason to fear any adverse effects on safety, and, indeed, there may be a positive safety benefit in removing these vehicles to some extent from roads less capable of accommodating them.
We have of course consulted interested organisations on this proposal, and I am glad to say there has been general agreement with them. I hope, with those few words, that the House will approve the Orders.

1.21 a.m.

Mr. Tom Bradley: The House will be grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Orders. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, given the gradual extension of the motorways network, these Orders are eminently reasonable in that the type of vehicle he has described will cause far less nuisance on the motorways than on all-purpose roads.
However, will he be a little more categorical in his assessment of the extra traffic burden that is likely to arise on our motorways? We are well aware of the way in which these vehicles on the Continent are pounding motorways to pieces where this type of Order is in


operation. Does the Minister intend to make extra provision for such maintenance as may be necessary in the slower lane arising from the extra usage which will be involved?
Will the Minister also say a word about the overtaking rules? Some motorways have only two lanes, and if a vehicle of this type doing between 10 m.p.h and 25 m.p.h. is to be overtaken by a similar vehicle at a slightly superior speed, there could be a build-up behind which could create serious traffic delay, thus aborting the very purpose of our motorways. Is the Minister to issue a code of conduct? Does he intend to prohibit the overtaking of this type of vehicle by a similar vehicle?
The Minister will be aware that these locomotives are not at present required to meet minimum braking standards. The Orders will encourage the development of higher speed vehicles, thus necessitating braking standards to be applied. I would welcome recognition by the Minister of these points, and some reassurance.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: With the leave of the House, I will reply briefly to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. The extra traffic burden on the motorways is bound to be proportionately very small. There are in the whole country only a few thousand of these vehicles, and they are already in use. If they are not on the motorways, which the House might think is the most suitable place for them, they are on other roads, often inadequate roads. Therefore, the additional burden on the motorways will be marginal. I pointed out that where they are pulling indivisible and abnormal loads they are already on the motorways. It is only where they are pulling normal loads that they are for the first time to be lawfully admitted.
I know of no reason to suppose that there will be additional wear and tear on the slow lanes of motorways. Certainly there is no evidence that additional maintenance will be required but I am sure that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman will be noted. I undertake that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to overtaking. He was not quite right in suggesting that their speeds would be between 10 m.p.h. and 25 m.p.h.,

although if they are going up hill they may well fall to that level. They will need to have a minimum speed of 25 m.p.h. Obviously it is not practicable for them always to be going at that minimum speed or higher.
I take the point about the way, through selfish overtaking by one heavy vehicle or another, there may be a convoy situation on the motorway, which is most irritating. I will consider what the hon. Gentleman said about a code of conduct. It may be that mention of this might be appropriate for inclusion in the Highway Code or other advice which the Department offers.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned minimum braking standards. I am assured that the present braking standards of such vehicles are adequate but I will look at this matter as he has asked me to.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (Scotland) Order 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th June. be approved.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

BLANDFORD GEE CEMENTATION COMPANY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatheril.]

1.27 a.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I seem destined to make 90 per cent. of my speeches in this House in the early hours of the morning. I first met my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) today before nine o'clock this morning, so he and I will have done 17 hours apiece in the House today. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting us this debate, because I think that the subject is perhaps a classic case for such a debate. I think that we shall prove your wisdom.
This case deals with an injustice to 68 men and involves a sum of about £19,100 in redundancy payments. Forty of the men were made redundant on 28th December, 1968–two and a half


years ago. It will, if we can clear the matter up, give me and my family some respite from the continual stream of callers at my home, by foot and by telephone, from my constituents involved. I do not blame them. It seems from my constituents and others that, after the High Court ruling on this case on 20th January, 1970, most of the money has already been spent or is spoken for and there are a good few holidays depending on these expected payments.
I have had an opportunity of looking through the files of this case, which are considerable and of a very detailed nature. They speak volumes for the work done on the case by the Nottinghamshire N.U.M. solicitors, the area officials of the Nottinghamshire N.U.M. and the branch officials of the Clipstone and Rufford Colliery N.U.M.
Looking through the list of 68 men involved, I seem to know most of them personally, because it seems only a short time ago that I was working with them at Rufford Colliery. I was once a branch official until I was elevated to this House. I have followed this case closely from the start from my contacts with these men, but it is only fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark and I were brought into the case officially only on 26th March last.
The history of this case started on 28th December, 1968, when Blandford Gee Cementation Company, which did certain contract work for the N.C.B. at Clipstone Colliery, such as tunnelling and making pit bunkers and road heads, made 40 men redundant, or dismissed them or transferred them to the N.C.B. At this point, the Nottinghamshire area of the mineworkers' union decided to claim redundancy payments for the men involved.
The case, or a test case involving two individuals, was brought before the Industrial Tribunal first at Nottingham on 24th April, 1969, then at Lincoln on 20th June, 1969, and then at Sheffield on 19th September, 1969. The decision of these Tribunals was dispatched to all the parties on 6th January, 1970, but it found in favour of Blandford and Gee. My union decided to appeal to the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, and entered the appeal on 20th January, 1970, just 14 days after the Tribunal's decision was

announced. The appeal was heard in London on 14th, 15th and 16th April, 1970, and it reversed the Tribunal's decision and found in favour of the ex-employees of Blandford Gee.
In the meantime, on 28th March, 1970, Blandford Gee dismissed 28 men from Rufford Colliery who were not included in the original test case. A second test case was started but was adjourned awaiting the outcome of the Clipstone men's test case. So the total involved at both collieries is 68 redundancies.
Since the High Court decision on 16th April, 1970, the union's solicitors have been in negotiation with Blandford Gee and the Department of Employment and agreed the amounts of all redundancy payments involved, a total of approximately £19,100. It is worth noting that this amount and the sums involved for the individuals would be more in total today due to the rapid rate of inflation since December, 1969, and, of course, with 2½ years' interest on the amounts. Some consideration of these points when payment is made is justifiable.
However, as a result of these claims and the N.U.M. claim for costs, Blandford Gee went into liquidation on 12th November, 1970, and, on 13th November, appointed Mr. J. H. Priestley of 93, Queen Street, Sheffield, as the liquidator. At this point, the union's solicitors, the union and the men involved expected payment, because by now the normal time limit of appeal, which I understand is six weeks, had long since gone by.
It is now July, 1971, and despite letters from the union's solicitors to the liquidator, Questions in the House from my hon. Friend and me, plus letters to the Department of Employment about the long overdue payment to these men, the liquidator has not given notice of appeal. He was appointed on 13th November, eight months ago.
The reason for this debate is that it is high time that these men were paid what is their justifiable claim. The liquidator has had more than enough time to make up his mind to seek leave to appeal. How long have the men to wait before the Minister thinks that sufficient time has elapsed to rule out the liquidator, or can the liquidator hold up this payment indefinitely? Is not it


time that the Minister, as he said in his letter to my hon. Friend on 23rd April, use Section 32 of the Redundancy Payments Act and paid these men out of the Redundancy Fund? After all, that is what it is there for. Surely the Minister is now satisfied about the justice of the case, and that the liquidator can no longer string these men along.
If this adjournment debate or the threat of it has stung the liquidator into action and he has now made application to appeal, I ask the Minister to ignore it and make payment. Even if the liquidator seeks and obtains leave to appeal, my union, the N.U.M. of the Nottinghamshire area, has given me authority to say on behalf of the officials at Berry Hill, Mansfield, that it will proceed with this case in order to secure justice for these men.
On the other hand, if the liquidator has got his finger out and finally decided not to appeal, this debate has served its purpose, because we shall have a decision one way or the other.
I hope sincerely that the Minister will bring this case to an end tonight and end the uncertainty for these men, their families and others who have become involved along the way. As a good constituency Member himself, the Minister must have a little sympathy for me and my family. We happen to live surrounded by the families involved, who are aggrieved by this injustice which they cannot understand and which is certainly not of their making.
It is usually the lawyers, and so on, who seem to get their own way in matters like this. I ask the Minister to come down on the side of the little man tonight by announcing a payment of the sums involved as soon as possible.

1.35 a.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I am pleased to have the opportunity of joining my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) in this debate which, though necessarily brief, is yet long enough for us to expose a situation which, if not remedied, has all the dimensions of a national scandal.
I speak, as did my hon. Friend, on behalf of the men of the Mansfield and Newark areas who have patiently waited

for over two years for this grievous matter to be resolved.
My hon. Friend, to whom I pay tribute for his part in this campaign to get justice, has detailed the main sequence of events leading to this debate this morning and, even at half past one, there is no need for me to repeat what he said.
Before drawing the Minister's attention to aspects of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, to which my hon. Friend referred, which I think are relevant to this situation, I should like to pay tribute to the officials of the National Union of Mineworkers of the Nottinghamshire area, to the N.U.M. officers and members at the two collieries concerned, Clip-stone and Rufford, and to the N.U.M.'s legal advisers. Between us we have been passing round a lot of paper work in the last few months. Much credit is due to them for their concern and persistence in this matter, justifiably so, because of the gross injustice which has been suffered by our constituents.
Section 32(5) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, provides that an employer, if a company,
shall be taken to be insolvent if
inter ali
a resolution for voluntary winding-up has been passed with respect to it.
That applies in this instance.
Blandford Gee's liquidator was appointed on 13th November, 1970 and although, after negotiations in the summer of 1970, agreement was reached over the amount of payments between the solicitor and the Department of Employment and Ministry Forms RP21 were signed by each claimant, the liquidator of Blandford Gee refused to sign.
In his letter to me, dated 23rd April, following Questions which my hon. Friend and I tabled in the Commons, the Under-Secretary of State claimed that the Secretary of State could not, in the knowledge that the judgment of the High Court might still be contested in the Court of Appeal, be satisfied as to the employee's entitlement to the employer's payment as he anticipated that leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was being sought.
I was informed by the N.U.M.'s solitors on 18th June that notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal had still not been


served upon them. That is the time between the appointment of the liquidator in November, 1970, and a few days ago. It seems that in the circumstances there is no justification for the Department of Employment withholding the payments to the men which it is under an obligation to guarantee.
The non-appeal by Blandford Gee's liquidator has left the matter in a state of suspended animation. The Minister told me, in his reply on 23rd April, that if the outcome is that the redundancy payments are due, they would be met from the Redundancy Fund.
Finally, I should stress that Blandford Gee has paid no part of the redundancy payments, being in liquidation directly as the result of its inability to meet the claims to redundancy payments. It has not paid the costs of the appeal, amounting to £370, despite the court order on it to do so.
I suggest that the Minister, under the Act, is empowered to pay. Indeed, the Act, in Section 32(2)(c), states that where the employee's right to the payment arises out of a period of not less than 104 weeks,
the Minister shall pay to the employee out of the fund a sum calculated in accordance with Schedule 6 to this Act reduced by so much (if any) of the employer's payment as has been paid.
I suggest, therefore, that our innocent constituents, who have been legal shuttlecocks, are entitled to payment at once, and I hope that the diminishing value of the £ and the possibility of getting interest over the last two years will be taken into account.
We are grateful for the opportunity of raising this matter, even at this early hour of the morning. We hope that we shall get satisfaction for those we seek to serve.

1.40 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): In my Written Reply to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) on 2nd April, I stated that the liquidator of the Blandford Gee Cementation Company was considering whether to appeal against a High Court judgment in favour of the employees. I have today heard that there will be no further appeal. The hon. Gentleman will be happy to hear that

the way is therefore now clear for payment to be made to the men out of the Redundancy Fund.
This late news makes unnecessary most of the speech that I had prepared to deliver tonight, but for the benefit of those most affected, and therefore most impatient at the course of events which had delayed payment of their entitlement, I think that I should perhaps explain and justfy the conduct of this case by my Department, because it is important for all to see that the Department is impartial and fair in handling such situations.
The suggestion has been made that when employees of the Blandford Gee Cementation Company claimed payments for the Redundancy Fund on various dates from 18th November, 1970, my right hon. Friend should at once have made payments to them by exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 32(1) (b) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965. That Section empowers the Secretary of State, if certain conditions are fulfilled, to make payments from the Redundancy Fund to employees who cannot obtain them from their employers, provided that he is satisfied that they are entitled to the payments.
I must emphasise this: Section 32 was designed to ensure that employees who are entitled to redundancy payments are not deprived of them by circumstances such as the insolvency of the employer. One of the purposes of the Redundancy Fund, which is financed entirely by statutory contributions paid by employers, is to ensure that the failure of a particular employer shall not have that result. But the Secretary of State also has a general responsibility under Section 26 of the Act for the control and management of the Fund. His general responsibilities would not be discharged if he were to make payments from the Fund before he could be satisfied about the entitlement of the recipients.
It is certainly our aim to make due payments as promptly as possible, and to this end to resolve as early as possible, so far as this lies within the control of my Department, any doubts about entitlement. In exceptional circumstances, however—and those surrounding this case certainly were exceptional—doubts did arise which my Department could not by itself resolve.
I need not now recapitulate the earlier history of the case which has been the subject of proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal and, on appeal from the tribunal's decision, before the High Court. It would, in any event, have been improper for me to comment on the decisions either of the tribunal, which is an independent judicial body, or of the High Court. Appeals from decisions of the tribunal can be made only to the High Court on the point of law, and appeal from the judgment of the High Court, where leave is given, lies to the Court of Appeal.
I shall, therefore, only draw attention to certain facts and dates. On 16th April, 1970, the High Court gave judgment against the company and ordered that if the parties could not agree on the amount of the payments the application should be remitted to the tribunal for assessment of the payment. As the same time the High Court gave the company leave to appeal. The normal period for appeal would have expired about mid-July, 1970, but the Court of Appeal has a discretion, on application by the appellant, to grant leave to appeal out of time.
Until today's decision by the liquidator not to exercise his right of appeal the

legal entitlement of the employees to redundancy pay was still in doubt. With his responsibility for the control and management of the Redundancy Fund my right hon. Friend was therefore not in a position to authorise payment. I am sure that this authorisation will bring satisfaction not only to the recipients, but to the hon. Member for Mansfield and the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) who have so consistently supported their claims.

Mr. Concannon: It would be churlish of me not to thank the hon. Gentleman and his Department for the considerable activity in which they have been engaged in dealing with this matter. I would particularly thank the Minister for leaning on somebody to come forward with a decision. At the same time I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) and myself an opportunity to put our case before the House tonight, which has had such a wonderful outcome for everybody involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Two o'clock.